The Glenwood post. (Glenwood Springs, Colo.) 1897-current, 1920-12-11
HIGH COURT IN
AUTO RULING
Sign DiscIaiming Responsible.
ity Does Not Release Garage
Owner In Fire Loss
HARRIS BROS. INVOLVED

Doubtless many of our readers have
often wondered to what extent Q garage
owner might be held responsible for
damage to or loss Of cars stored in his
place in case of . destructive fire.
Garage proprietors over the country
have generally adopted the habit Of
posting their premises with signs Civ
ing notice to the public that they would
from fire in their property.
To what extent such statement can
be made to absolve a garage owner
from responsibility and release him
from financial obligation is u question
which has occurred to almost every
auto owner who has had occasion to
store his car in public garage. The
Supreme Court of Colorado handed
down decision last Monday, in which
Paris Bros. of Rifle and Grand June
ton were involved. The court holds
that garage prcprietors are not exempt
from responsibility from loss sustained
in fire that is the result of faulty
construction or carelessnesS This will
doubtless involve quite heavy loss
to Paris Bros.
The Grand Junction News prints the
following account of the case and the
decision:
Upper x Smith, attorneys, received
notice yesterday from the state supreme
court that they were sustained by JUS
tice Burke in the case appealed from
the Mesa county district court by Rich
ard Paris. ct al. The case was decid-
ed against Paris Brothers by Judge
Black in the local court, and upon ap-
will bring to an end case that has
drawn statewide attention for some
time.
The case grew out of a fire that de-
stroycd several automobiles and dam
aged the building that was known as
the Buick garage, on Colorado avenue,
over two years ago. Shortly after the
fire suit was fled in the district court
by Claire Jaquith, one of the heaviest
losers in the fire, and Attorneys Tur-
per & Smith won the decision for their
clients.
cause they had sign posted in con-
spicuous place in their garage that they
were not responsible for loss by fire this
would free them from any responsible
ity in case of loss or damage to
ears stored in their garage The
prosecution set up the contention that
ligeut conduct did not free the owners
of the business from responsibility
if loss occurred.
The widespread interest in the case
was conferred in the placing Of RESPONSE
biity for loss upon the owners of the
garage, as the decision will affect nu-
1nefouS cases tnat nave cOUle up bcloIc'
and the making of garages responsible
for losses places that business in po-
sition where the owners will have to
use every precaution to prevent fire
from carelcssness, and that a faulty
construction OF arrangement in their
premises will not excuse them from ha-
blity for damage to ears by fire when
left in their place Of business for safe
keeping.
There were six or seven cars in the
Paris Brothers. garage that were to-
tally or partially destroyed the night
of the fire, among them was the big
county motor sprinklink truck, which
was a total loss. Claire Jaquith lost
shis ear and silmon Smith lost his auto
besides several Others
The loss was estimated at between
$4,000 and 100000.