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
SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
Religious Holidays in Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Violate the Establishment Clause 
THE CITY ALLOWED THE LOT TO BE USED FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS BUT NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY DEDICATED THE LOT AS PARKLAND, THEREFORE THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AND THE CITY CAN DEVELOP THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).
ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY; SEVERAL CONVICTIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES MORE THAN ONE WAY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED OFFENSE, THE PEOPLE NEED ONLY PROVE ONE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A DISCOVERY RULE ENACTED IN 2018 REACHED BACK TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE RULE WAS ENACTED TO RENDER TIMELY THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...