Case Name: Henry R. Wilson, Respondent, v. Wyckoff, Church & Partridge, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-18
Citations: 133 A.D. 92
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry R. Wilson, Respondent, v. Wyckoff, Church & Partridge, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 92–97

Head Matter:
Henry R. Wilson, Respondent, v. Wyckoff, Church & Partridge, Appellant.
First Department,
June 18, 1909.
Bailment — motor vehicle — liability of keeper of garage for loss of motor car.
Evidence in an action against the owner oía garage to .recover damages for the" loss of an automobile taken therefrom without written authority of the .owner examined and Jield to justify a verdict of the jury finding defendant guilty of lack of due care in failing to adopt proper methods to prevent chauffeurs 1 taking put motor cars without: due authority.
Houghton and Laughlin, JJ.,. dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the .defendant, Wyckoff, Church & Partridge, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor'of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 27th day of November, 1908, upon the verdict of a-jury, and also-from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th day of December, 1908, denying the. defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon" the minutes.
Frederick S. Randall,. for the appellant.
J. Frederick Eagle, for the respondent,

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 employees, 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 doormen 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 impropdrly. 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., concurred; Laughlin and Houghton, JJ., dissented.