## Facts

- A customer rented a safe-deposit box from a bank for a fee and placed about $9,400 in cash in the box.
- The customer later discovered the cash missing and sued the bank for the loss.
- The customer alleged the bank failed to safeguard the contents of the box and sought recovery on a bailment theory or, alternatively, on the bank’s duty to use ordinary care.
- The bank denied liability, arguing the relationship was merely lessor–lessee, that it had no dominion over the box contents, and that the evidence did not show negligent conduct proximately causing the loss.
- The trial court denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment, and the bank appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a bank that rents safe-deposit boxes for a fee may be treated as a bailee for hire (or otherwise owes a duty of ordinary care) as to loss of a renter’s box contents.
2. Whether evidence of delivery to the safe-deposit facility and later loss of the contents creates a triable issue of negligence and proximate cause sufficient to defeat the bank’s motion for summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the bank.
- The court held that, for liability regarding theft or loss of safe-deposit box contents where rent is charged, the relationship is properly treated as a bailment for hire governed by ordinary bailment rules.
- The court concluded that, even under an ordinary-care framing, the record permitted a jury to find negligence and proximate cause, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- A bank that rents safe-deposit boxes for a fee is generally subject to the duties of a bailee for hire regarding the protection of box contents.
- Describing the safe-deposit arrangement as “lessor–lessee” in another legal context does not control the bank’s duty to safeguard a renter’s property.
- Proof that the renter placed property into the protected safe-deposit setting and later found it missing may support an inference of failure to exercise ordinary care, leaving breach and proximate cause for the jury where material facts remain disputed.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate when the evidence, viewed favorably to the nonmovant, would allow reasonable jurors to find the bank failed to use ordinary care in its security or access procedures and that such failure caused the loss.

## Conclusion

The court treated the bank’s safe-deposit rental as a bailment for hire and held that the customer’s evidence of loss raised jury questions on ordinary care and causation, so the bank was not entitled to summary judgment.


Buena Vista Loan & Savings Bank v. Bickerstaff, 121 Ga. App. 470, 174 S.E.2d 219 (1970)