Court Opinion

ID: 9756236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:17:07.964439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:16.728801
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree there was no bailment here. The lot was enclosed, had only one entrance and one exit, and an attendant was in charge. When the car was left on the lot it was clearly understood that it would not be removed until the fee had been paid; and, in my opinion, when the customer left *902the car on the lot it was left in the custody and possession of the operator and a bailment relationship arose.
The claim check issued by the operator of the lot stated: “Reasonable care is given cars left in our custody.” True it is that in - language following that statement, the operator attempted to relieve itself from all responsibility, but its recognition that the cars were left in its custody and that reasonable care was due to be exercised strengthens my belief that a bailment existed.