Court Opinion

ID: 9543638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:32.926502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:48.368569
License: Public Domain

PRATT, Chief Justice
(concurring).
An examination of the authorities convinces me that the opinion of Mr. Justice Wade is in line with the weight of authority. I believe, however, we should recognize some limitation to the principles covered. I note the following expression in the case of Healy v. New York Central and H. R. R. Co., 153 App. Div. 516, 138 N. Y. S. 287, at page 289, par. (2) :
“* * * neither was there anything connected with the transaction, * * * which would tend in any way to suggest to a reasonably prudent man, or lead him to suspect, the existence of such a special contract, or tend to put him on guard or on inquiry relative thereto * *
This quotation refers to the bailor’s lack of knowledge of any special limitation as to liability.
*179We say that even though a notice of limitation is posted where the bailor can easily see it — he may even have pushed it aside to put his suitcase down — unless his attention is called to the notice or sign, he is not bound by it. The effect of this is to say that the best evidence — the posted written notice is insufficient, but the poor memory , of some clerk, who may have waited upon the bailor in a crowd, and has a great deal of trouble identifying him, is the real link in the chain of events that creates the special contract. The posting and existence of the sign can be proven by any number of people; but the calling specific attention to the sign is provable by only the one party, the clerk — if he remembers. Let us, however, accept that as the law. Should it be applied without limitation?
If a bailor seeks to claim unusual value to the suitcase deposited, should he not be classed as an individual of sufficient familiarity with our present economic ways of thinking, to realize that the ordinary human being is not desirous of assuming custody of a million dollars worth of jewels for the magnificent sum of ten cents? Our very materialistic ways of thinking, which are generally known to the public, would raise in the mind of the average individual, the question of whether or not the bailee would care to assume that much responsibility. Should he not be put upon inquiry, when he seeks to deposit the out-of-the-ordinary piece of baggage? I do not say the present case illustrates the out-of-the-ordinary deposit of baggage; but I do believe that the bailor should be held to some semblance of reasonableness in his actions.