Case Name: WILSON v. WYCKOFF, CHURCH & PARTRIDGE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-18
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 783
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILSON v. WYCKOFF, CHURCH & PARTRIDGE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 783–787

Head Matter:
WILSON v. WYCKOFF, CHURCH & PARTRIDGE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 18, 1909.)
1. Bailment (§ 33 )—Keeping of Automobiles—Breach of Contract—Evidence—Questions fob Jury.
The evidence in an action against the keeper of a garage for breach of a contract under which defendant was to keep plaintiff’s automobile in his garage and.not allow it to be taken out at night without plain tiff’s written order held sufficient to make the question of defendant’s negligence in allowing the automobile to be' taken out without a written order one for the jury.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Bailment, Dec. Dig. § 33. ]
2. Bailment (§ 31 )—Negligence—Cabe of Automobiles—Bbeach of Contract-Sufficiency of Evidence.
Evidence in an action for breach of the contract under which defendant was to keep plaintiff’s automobile in his garage and not allow it to be taken out at night without a written order from plaintiff held sufficient to justify the jury in finding that defendant was negligent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bailment, Cent. Dig. § 131; Dec. Dig. § 31. ]
3. Bailment (§ 17 )—Care of Automobiles—Construction of Contract.
A contract by the keeper of a garage to keep plaintiff’s automobile and not allow it to be taken out after night without a written order from plaintiff protects plaintiff against the act of his chauffeur In taking the automobile out without such order.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bailment, Cent Dig. § 75; Dec. Dig. § 17. ]
Houghton and Laughlin, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal fromeTrial Term, New York County.
Action by Henry R; Wilson against Wyckoff, Church & Partridge. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Frederick S. Randall, for appellant.
J. Frederick Eagle, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The question of defendant's negligence was essentially one for the jury, and was fairly submitted by the court. All the evidence upon the subject was that which was furnished by defendant's employés, and may therefore be assumed to be as favorable to defendant as the truth would permit. It may be that the evidence did not convict the defendant's doorman of negligence, but it does not follow that defendant showed proper diligence in devising and putting into effect methods which would more effectually prevent chauffeurs taking out motor cars improperly. Indeed, the whole defense is that defendant adopted a method which ought not to be expected to be effective at what are called "rush" hours. It is difficult to believe that some more effective means might not have been adopted, and the jury were justified in finding that the failure to adopt, or at least try, some other method, constituted a lack of due care on defendant's part. It is no answer to say that the chauffeur was plaintiff's servant, for defendant's contract explicitly was to protect plaintiff against his own servant's acts. So far as regards the measure of damages, I concur with Mr. Justice HOUGHTON.
In my opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
INGRAHAM and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur.