Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Matthew Jacobs

In order for Delbert to prevail in his claim against the hotel he needs to prove that a
relationship with bailment existed between Delbert and the hotel. In order to do this, Delbert
must be able to show that a delivery of the personal property was made that gave the bailee sole
possession over the property with the bailee knowingly accepting it. If either one, or both, of
these conditions is not satisfied, there is no bailment based relationship and the hotel does not
have any liability. Based on the details depicted in this scenario it seems logical to conclude that
the parking lot attendant, as part of his assigned duties under employment for Hotel Ritz,
knowingly took possession and exclusive control over Delberts car by accepting and holding
onto Delberts keys in order to place it in the underground parking lot. Thus, a bailment was
created as to the car. There is also an expectation that the hotel will take a reasonable degree of
care over the property, which includes it being returned to Delbert at the end of the bailment. By
failing to return the car, there is an assumed failure for maintaining reasonable care (basically a
presumption of negligence), that the hotel must refute before the liability can be removed. The
existence of the placard denying liability does not change the fact that the attendant knowingly
took exclusive possession over the car, and thus, does not prevent them from sustaining a
liability.
With regards to the fur coat, since there was no reasonable expectation for the hotel to
know a $10,000 fur coat would be kept in a car, unless specifically told to them otherwise, there
would be no reason for the hotel to expect one to be located in the trunk of the car. Based on the
details provided, I do not think any bailment can be created with regard to the coat since the
hotel attendant did not knowingly take possession of it. Thus, there is no liability for the hotel
with regards to the fur coat.