Subwoofer box was stolen while at a Dahl dealership, they say they have no video after 2weeks, Can I still sue for the loss of property?

[soloist]

Minnesota:

My vehicle went to GM Dahl Automotive on 5/29/18 for a GM investigation on my Airbags.
I got a text that the investigator was there on 6/4/18.
Th investigator called me on 6/11/18 to ask some more questions where he also asked if I had a sound system because he saw some power and amplifier wires in the back.
My vehicle was towed to my home location on 6/19/18. Where I noticed after my vehicle was off the tow truck I had no Sub sound, so I opened the back hatch and my system was gone. There were no pulled wires or anything as if it was taking out clean. There was also no visual damage of a break in.

I filed a Police report the same day and talked to the dealership in which they said they would do an investigation.

Officer got back to me on 6/29/18 stating that Dahl said they don’t have any video records as they delete them every 2 weeks.
At this point do I have a case to sue Dahl? It seems like it was stolen between 5/29-6/4

 

[quincy]

You possibly have a claim to pursue against the dealership but more needs to be known, such as what documents were signed by you before leaving your vehicle at the dealership and what security was provided on site.

Your real claim is against the thief, though - and that means identifying the person or persons who took your sound system.

Did you contact your insurance agent?

 

[adjusterjack]

It seems like it was stolen between 5/29-6/4

"Seems like" is not evidence.

 

[soloist]

Just an estimation when I think it was stolen compared to when the investigator arrived.

 

[quincy]

Just an estimation when I think it was stolen compared to when the investigator arrived.

You do not have a lot to support a lawsuit.

 

[pac72]

i doubt the dealership is liable for your possessions when the car is stored on their property for service ,whats their policy on that?

 

[quincy]

i doubt the dealership is liable for your possessions when the car is stored on their property for service ,whats their policy on that?

Whether the dealership can be held liable for damage to vehicles or loss of personal property in vehicles while vehicles are stored on dealership property depends on a whole host of factors.

 

[Litigator22]

Minnesota:

My vehicle went to GM Dahl Automotive on 5/29/18 for a GM investigation on my Airbags.
I got a text that the investigator was there on 6/4/18.
Th investigator called me on 6/11/18 to ask some more questions where he also asked if I had a sound system because he saw some power and amplifier wires in the back.
My vehicle was towed to my home location on 6/19/18. Where I noticed after my vehicle was off the tow truck I had no Sub sound, so I opened the back hatch and my system was gone. There were no pulled wires or anything as if it was taking out clean. There was also no visual damage of a break in.

I filed a Police report the same day and talked to the dealership in which they said they would do an investigation.

Officer got back to me on 6/29/18 stating that Dahl said they don’t have any video records as they delete them every 2 weeks.
At this point do I have a case to sue Dahl? It seems like it was stolen between 5/29-6/4

Please don't despair as your situation is governed and benefited by the established and well defined laws of bailment.

What is bailment? Bailment is a contractual relationship that attaches when someone transfers the possession and control of their personal property to another for some specific temporary purpose; the owner is referred to as the "bailor" and the recipient of the property the "bailee". It can be created either with a signed contract or without a signed contract.

Regardless of who benefits by the transfer - whether one benefits over the other or it serves as a mutual benefit the law imposes a duty on the part of the bailee to exercise due care to safeguard the property. And when a loss or damage to the property occurs due to the bailee's failure to exercise reasonable care the bailee incurs liability.

So, again don't be discouraged by the naysayers in here or think that you are left to resort to your insurance or must eat the loss. You have a winnable lawsuit against the dealership for the loss and they very well know it.

If you have any questions, please ask.

 

[justalayman]

Please don't despair as your situation is governed and benefited by the established and well defined laws of bailment.

What is bailment? Bailment is a contractual relationship that attaches when someone transfers the possession and control of their personal property to another for some specific temporary purpose; the owner is referred to as the "bailor" and the recipient of the property the "bailee". It can be created either with a signed contract or without a signed contract.

Regardless of who benefits by the transfer - whether one benefits over the other or it serves as a mutual benefit the law imposes a duty on the part of the bailee to exercise due care to safeguard the property. And when a loss or damage to the property occurs due to the bailee's failure to exercise reasonable care the bailee incurs liability.

So, again don't be discouraged by the naysayers in here or think that you are left to resort to your insurance or must eat the loss. You have a winnable lawsuit against the dealership for the loss and they very well know it.

If you have any questions, please ask.

OK dude, under the laws of [THIS] type of bailment (you need to state what type of bailment it is), what is the bailee’s Duty of care to the bailor (your reasonable standard of care does not apply to all types of bailments)?

And once you figure that out; what does that mean in regards to what the Bailee is obligated to.

 

[quincy]

Please don't despair as your situation is governed and benefited by the established and well defined laws of bailment.

What is bailment? Bailment is a contractual relationship that attaches when someone transfers the possession and control of their personal property to another for some specific temporary purpose; the owner is referred to as the "bailor" and the recipient of the property the "bailee". It can be created either with a signed contract or without a signed contract.

Regardless of who benefits by the transfer - whether one benefits over the other or it serves as a mutual benefit the law imposes a duty on the part of the bailee to exercise due care to safeguard the property. And when a loss or damage to the property occurs due to the bailee's failure to exercise reasonable care the bailee incurs liability.

So, again don't be discouraged by the naysayers in here or think that you are left to resort to your insurance or must eat the loss. You have a winnable lawsuit against the dealership for the loss and they very well know it.

If you have any questions, please ask.

You are basing your advice on nothing more than supposition, latigo. There are not enough facts here to determine if the dealership can be held liable for the theft of items from the vehicle.

 

[justalayman]

S

You are basing your advice on nothing more than supposition, latigo. There are not enough facts here to determine if the dealership can be held liable for the theft of items from the vehicle.

seriously? Thats latigo? It can’t be. Latigo knows the laws of bailments better than the post suggests. At least I’m pretty sure he does.

 

[Just Blue]

S

seriously? Thats latigo? It can’t be. Latigo knows the laws of bailments better than the post suggests. At least I’m pretty sure he does.

But the way Litigator "talks" is pure litigo...don't you think?

 

[quincy]

Oops. I meant "Litigator."

 

[Litigator22]

OK dude, under the laws of [THIS] type of bailment (you need to state what type of bailment it is), what is the bailee’s Duty of care to the bailor (your reasonable standard of care does not apply to all types of bailments)?

I've already "figured it out", Mister Wisenheimer!

Whether you think so or not is of no particular moment, but I am well acquainted - and for a good number of years been acquainted - with the escalating levels of responsibility placed upon a bailee with regard to the safeguarding and care of the bailor's entrusted property depending on the purpose of the bailment. But I find no need to burden the poster with a length dissertation of the subject other than to inform and offer my opinion as stated.

Now if your opinion differs in that you think the arrangement as disclosed places a duty of care upon the dealership below the reasonable prudent man standard such as to relieve or might relieve the dealership of liability for the loss then speak up and explain; preferably without any childish unwarranted rebuke.

 

[justalayman]

Um, do ya think you can not put your response inside what you quoted of mine so it isn’t hidden inside the quote? If I hadn’t expanded the quoted portion I wouldn’t have realized you had even written anything.

So what is the duty of care owed the bailor?

Given the facts at hand can you determine if that duty has been breached?


Your prudent man standard is not applicable until you determine the level of care owed the bailor. Then you can apply the prudent man standard to determine if the bailee has breached the imposed level of duty of care. If you have already figured it out, you are either privileged to information not available within the thread or you are clairvoyant.


While you wish to give the op some hope he may recover his losses from the dealership, so far there is simply not enough information provided to even venture a guess at all, let alone determine the dealer is somehow liable for the losses.