GOLF related question... where's King Solomon?

[myonlysunshine]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY


Ok, so I purchase a new Taylor Made driver and my friend borrows it.
He takes it home and I don't see it for a 2 weeks.

I ask for it back and says he'll drop it off to a mutual friend who can return it as he lives near me.

Well, the friend ends up with his SUV on fire (write off) from faulty wiring in the dashboard and I lose my driver as it was in the back.

Firefighter handed a black metal stick back to me as I shook my head in disbelief.


Can anyone pull a King Solomon and tell me who owes me a new driver?

 

[cyjeff]

Your friend does.

I recommend that he look to his insurance company for repayment after he has paid you.

 

[justalayman]

what kind (manufacturer) of SUV?

 

[tranquility]

I don't know if anyone does.

We have two bailments here. In the first there is a bailment to benefit the borrower of the club and in the second, a bailment which was to benefit the borrower again along with the OP. In the first, the standard of care by borrower is the highest level of care where even slight negligence would give rise to liability. In the second, the transporter only needs to exercise ordinary care.

The borrower did seem to act without negligence. He gave it to a presumably responsible person to transport the club to the OP. Unless there is some (any) reason to think there was a problem with the transporter, I think he did exercise the level of care required. The transporter now has to exercise ordinary care. What type of negligence did he do which caused the car fire? If he was lighting roman candles out the window, there would certainly be negligence here. In this case, no negligence on the part of the transporter is alleged.

If the same fire happened in the hands of the borrower, there may be liability as we could say he needed to bring in the club every night or something to achieve the high level of care required. Here it happened in the hands of the transporter who had a much lower level of care.

Legally? I'd say this was an "accident" and no one owes the OP anything. (Absent some evidence the transporter is a known cheesehead [borrower owes] or committed some sort of negligence.[transporter owes]) Among friends? If I borrowed something from a friend I'd feel responsible until it was back in his hands.

 

[You Are Guilty]

It's small claims. Call it "conversion" and request an arbitrator. (My money is on the innocent OP.)

 

[tranquility]

I agree. Small claims has little to do with the law. Who will the OP sue?

(But, if in big boy court, do you disagree with anything I wrote?)

 

[You Are Guilty]

For Small Claims, name the friend and the middle man. (Heck, name the manufacturer of middle man's SUV).

For real court, name the attorney who thinks they can file suit in any court of higher jurisdiction for a $400 golf club

 

[CreativeBlock]

The last time I was in a situation similar to this was likely over 20 years ago (dating myself, here), so please forgive me if my information is out of date, or if I just had spectacular auto insurance ...

When I was in a similar situation (involving electronics, not sporting goods, if it makes a difference), my insurance paid for the damaged item (as when asked "what was damaged" I included the borrowed item). I then paid the owner for the value, using the insurance funds.

Is there a reason it did not occur thusly in this case? Have things changed so much in the last two decades?

 

[libellous]

Why not check car insurance and homeowners insurance policies

Insurance companies = deepest pockets ever

If covered, the friend would likely be more willing to tack on a $400 claim to an already large insurance claim rather than have to go to small claims

 

[justalayman]

in this situation the vehicle owner was neither the owner or the borrower of the club. He was doing the favor for the borrower but presumably at no charge As such, there was a gratuitous bailment with no benefit to the bailee (driver) formed. The driver only had the duty to use ordinary care when handling the club. Unless he somehow caused the fire or knew the car would likely be consumed in flames, he has no liability. An insurer indemnifies their customers for their legal liabilities. As such, the insurance company would be correct if they denied any such claim.

Doesn't mean they can't pay it but in today's world, a bit less than likely.

While I don't agree with the resulting lack of liability of the bailee, I think tranq is correct in his argument concerning this.

While the courts may not place liability on the bailee, I believe he has a moral duty to replace the driver.

Apparently YAG believes the courts may find in favor of the owner. I presume his argument of conversion would be based on such liability.


so YAG, if this was in a court superior to small claims, what do you believe the outcome would be? Are you betting on the owner simply because it being heard in small claims?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Small claims is always a crapshoot. As for who would win when the actual law is supposed to be followed, I don't think there is any liability on the middleman. I can conjure up some facts which might make the borrower liable, but based only on what we have, OP might be out of luck.

That said, the suggestion to look to auto/home insurance is not necessarily a bad one - but it should be the borrower's insurance, not the middleman's. I doubt their auto would cover it, but it's conceivable that certain personal property in the possession of others might be covered under the homeowner's.

 

[schumacher]

You have a valid question and one that's tricky to answer. I work in the industry so I can tell you how my company would handle this. You have to know that not all companies are as good as mine and may not provide you the same coverage (or service for that matter).

In this particular example there would be no coverage for the driver under the auto insurance policy. However, if the driver (not to be mistaken for 1-wood) of the vehicle had a homeowners/renters insurance policy, there could be coverage under what is called "property of others". This coverage does not have a deductible like "personal property" does and may have a limit of $500. Since this guy was doing his friend a favor, it would be unrealistic to expect him to put a claim against his insurance policy and be stuck with the ramifications.

As for advice about small claims court, tough call. Is it worth straining a friendship over $500? Good luck to you and what a crappy situation.

 

[myonlysunshine]

Thanks guys.

What I did was nothing... I found out that the SUV belonged to a friend of his and he wasn't claiming any contents from the vehicle.

Such is life.