Court Opinion

ID: 9702530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:15:21.718842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:38.358311
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion By
Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern :
As I view the question here involved, the present decision and the majority opinion seeking to justify it are contrary to the law laid down in such cases in practically every other State of the Union, as cited in 8 C.J.S. pp. 343, 344, §50 c (2). Pennsylvania should ally itself with the other jurisdictions in adopting what is the only logical and practical rule that should govern in the trial of bailment cases.
The error here consists in confusing the ultimate burden of proof which rests throughout upon the bailor to prove that the loss of his property was due to the *557negligence of the bailee, and the shifting of the burden of going forward with the evidence after the bailor has proved delivery to the bailee and the latter’s failure to return the property on demand.
It is obvious why this well-nigh universal rule accords with the necessities of the situation. That the tractor in the present case was stolen was admitted by plaintiff in the presentation of his testimony, but how was he in a position to prove the precautions or lack of precautions adopted by defendant to protect the bailed property from such a theft? This proof lay solely within the knowledge of defendant, and the law always places the burden of showing the facts upon the party alone able, or best able, to explain them.
I therefore dissent.
Mr. Justice Musmanno concurs in this opinion.