Bailment

Bailment requirements:

1) transfer of possession of personal property

2) to be returned to bailor or dealt with according to his/her instructions

Results in split between

ownership (title)
&
possession

Bailee has
* possession
*insurable interest
* “special property” (s. 322(1) Crim Code)

Issues in bailment:

1) creation: has a valid bailment been created?

transfer of possession necessary

parking lot cases
bailment vs. license
bailment and lease of chattel can co-exist

2) liability issues

duties of bailee:

i) duty not to convert goods

ii) duty to take reasonable care

iii) duty to follow bailor’s instructions

re ii) need to establish standard of care expected of bailee

formerly, a question of law:

Coggs v. Bernard (1703) laid out 6 categories of bailments, each with a specific standard of
care

Now question of fact:

What was understanding of parties?

What was nature of transaction? (Gratuitous, for value, etc.)

Morris v Martin

Issues

1) can π sue ∆ sub-bailee directly? (Conversion)

2) if so, is she bound by exemption clause in K between Beder and ∆?

3) if so, does clause apply to events here?

1) Yes:

Majority: direct bailment exists between π and ∆

Minority: π has sufficient interest to sue, as head bailor

2) Majority: unnecessary to decide

Minority: yes, provided she expressly/impliedly consented to bailee doing so

(NB implications for doctrine of privity)

3) whole court: clause does not apply to events here as a matter of interpretation
L does not cover theft of “non-customer’s” goods; → covers harm to goods of
“customers” & Beder, not pltf, was customer here

term of bailment:

1. bailment at will – term is indefinite – bailor retains “immed. right to possess”

2. bailment for a term – bailor’s rt. to imm. poss’n postponed until end of term

except that wrongful act by bailee (e.g., conversion) ends term prematurely & bailor’s rt to
imm. possn revives
Mason v Westside Cemeteries (1996)

Note existence of alternative causes of action: action in bailment (based on failure to return
bailed item); vs. action in negligence (based on breach of duty of care owed to plaintiff).
Bailment actions sometimes framed in contract too.

While result will usually be the same, sometimes results of different causes of action will vary.
So how to frame action remains crucial.

General rule: where bailed item disappears or is damaged/destroyed during subsistence of

bailment, bailee bears burden of proof to explain how it happened without his/her negligence.

Gobeil v Elliot, Taylor v Wong Aviation

Consistent with Mason?