gregor1234 said:
Thank you for your replies. But I have more questions…
I understand Badapple's reply regarding creation of a bailment. Badapple would probably assert that the owner should accept responsibility for the cars themselves and the installed stereos since these are actually part of the vehicles and such stereos are expected in most any vehicle. Responsibility for the contents would be limited.
BUT… consider the position implied by Seniorjudge's question… The repair shop owner did take special care to safeguard the vehicles by using barbed wire fences and a guard dog.
Does what Badapple calls a "strict bailment" outweigh the care that the repair shop owner took? YES
Can the precautions taken by the repair shop owner be considered reasonably sufficient since they were de facto insufficient?
They can be "sufficient" to withstand negligence claims, but he is still liable under strict liability.
Now it turns out that the robbery may have been perpetrated by an employee of the repair shop. Is it the responsibility of the owner to take care that new employees are not likely to rob shop patrons?
There are negligent hiring claims that can be brought, particularly if this employee has a past record of theft/dishonesty. Again, strict liability is best, it doesn't require any proof of fault on the part of the garage owner.
In my business I deal with documents. If a customer gives me his document to complete a project, I would feel responsible for replacing them if they were lost in a flood, fire or to vandals, even though I put them in a safe with a burglar alarm and security patrol in a fireproof building above the 100-year flood plain (which I do).
On the other hand a court might find that the cautions I had taken to prevent loss of those document were all that anyone could be expected to do and so exonerate me from any responsibility.
It doesn't matter, your being entrusted with the documents for safekeeping, for which you are compensated, creates strict liability, no matter how safe you are.
And finally I understand there is something called a claim of tort? As far as my limited understanding goes this very nearly means that someone has to pay so "you're it" cause you were holding the bag. Would this apply to the repair shop? I realize I probably don't understand this very well so any explanations would be welcome.
Torts/negligence is a broad subset of law, sort of like contract law, criminal law. Strict liability in bailment is the legal theory you proceed under, other theories could be negligent security, negligent hiring, etc.
Can anyone out there tackle these questions and make this clearer for me?
Strict liability is just that, strict. It does not matter how much care is taken. It would not matter if you encased the cars in cement garages with security set up like fort knox. It just matters that the car was kept by the lot owner, he was paid for keeping the car/repairing it, and as a result, damage occurred. Sucks, don't it?
Strict liability doesn't arrise in many circumstances. Playing with explosives and other dangerous instrumentalities, keeping wild animals, product liability, and, bailments for hire.
And its not an acceptance of responsibility. By taking possession of the cars, for repair, and for profit, the garage owner takes on the legal burden of strict liability as a result of the bailment for hire.
Taking caution and being reasonable deal with negligence. Negligence is a higher standard to meet than strict liability.
As for the stereos, those I would say is covered as part of the automobile, as opposed to the contents, and are covered by the bailment.
With all due respect to seniorjudge, I doubt he thought of the bailment angle. Every attorney approaches problems differently. Most lawyers think negligence and intentional torts, and forget about the strict liability angle. He is, of course, correct if you are proceeding to recover under a negligence theory, you need to prove fault. Strict liability, however, requires no showing of fault.
