You are here: / / DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS;...

DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS; PROPER WAY TO CALCULATE DAMAGES FOR THE DESTROYED GOODS UNDER A CONTRACT THEORY EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined the verdict in this bailment/contract action should not have been set aside as a matter of law under a gratuitous bailment theory, but was properly set aside because the damages amount was not supported by the evidence. A new trial was ordered on damages only. The plaintiff is a horse breeder and defendants were storing frozen semen from plaintiff's stallion free of charge. Somehow the semen thawed and was therefore destroyed. The Second Department held the defendants were liable under a gratuitous bailment theory because the failure to return the stored goods is evidence of gross negligence. The court went on to find that the market value of the portion of the stored semen which was not under contract for sale had not been proven:

In a gratuitous bailment, the bailee is only liable to the bailor for the bailee's gross negligence. However, “the failure to return the object bailed establishes a prima facie case of gross negligence, requiring the bailee to come forward with an explanation” … . Here, the defendants failed to return the plaintiff's property, which was destroyed while in their possession, and further failed to come forward with an explanation to negate the resulting prima facie case of gross negligence. * * *

…[P]laintiff submitted evidence of executed contracts for the sale of 16 of the destroyed straws of semen to various breeders at the price of $1,000 per straw. Since the amount of lost profits associated with these contracted sales was certain and definite, the plaintiff was entitled to an award of $16,000 for the loss of these 16 straws … . However, with respect to the remaining 194 straws that were destroyed, for which no contracts to purchase had been executed, the proper measure of market value is the price at which they could be replaced with a product of similar quality and characteristics in the market that existed immediately before their loss … . Reed v Cornell Univ., 2016 NY Slip Op 02797, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


You might also like
HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION PRECLUDED THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER, A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE HOMEOWNER’S LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
“Vested Right” Doctrine Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT).
THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER’S FILE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DISCLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
Nursing License Not Marital Property/Criteria Explained
Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN DECEDENT. TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO WARN DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISRUPTIVE...