2. Whether the Hotel authorities owed a duty of reasonable care of the car in its premises?

i. In this case, the hotel company owed a duty of reasonable care and they fulfilled their duty of
reasonable care by providing a designated space in the parking area.They have taken all the ncessary
precautions required for the safety of the premises as well as vehicle which include trained staff, a good
surveillance system and security guards.We can also show all the evidences of the same.

ii. The fact that the car was stolen does not mean that there was negligence on the part of the
hotel.Negligence means the failure to take the reasonable care which results in damage to the
plaintiff.But it is not so in this case.There is no breach of duty to care on hotel company side and the
theft of the car was an incident which has occurred out of the knowledge of the hotel.

iii.As per section 152 of Indian contract Act,1872 ,in the absence of any special contract, the bailee is not
responsible for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the reasonable
amount of care.

The judgements passed in previous cases of similar kind also indicate that the bailee is not
responsible for any loss if he has taken all the amount of reasonable care-

In Sunderlal Vs. Ramswaroop, a man hired a wooden shop and it was burnt by mobs during communal
riots in the city .It was held that the bailee was not liable as the loss was due to events beyond his
control.

In another case, Bullen v Swan Electric Graving Co.,the bailee was not held liable as he proved that the
plates were kept in a proper place ,under the care of proper persons and in a proper arrangement.

Thus the hotel company is also not liable for the theft as it has taken all the amount of
reasonable care required for the safety of plaintiff vehicle

iv. There is a special Valet Parking agreement , which indicates a limitation of liability clause and
absolves hotel company of responsibility for any loss or damage to vehicles parked on their premises.In
respect of this agreement ,the company cannot be made liable for the loss occurred to the plaintiff as
this liability clause is already in his knowledge .Thus he cannot sued the hotel company for the theft of
the car.