## Facts

- Highway Motor Company operated an auto-repair garage in Pocatello, Idaho, doing business as Park Price Company/Park Price Motors.
- On December 2, 1969, Dale K. Low’s son brought Low’s automobile to the garage for repairs that required removing the engine.
- The garage admitted it had custody of the vehicle as a bailee for hire while the repairs were underway.
- After removing the engine, the garage stored the car outside in an unfenced area between the garage and an adjacent street.
- While the car was stored there, its transmission disappeared. Exactly when it was removed and by whom were unknown.
- The garage notified Low on or about December 18 that the transmission had been stolen and denied any obligation to pay for the loss.
- The parties stipulated that the transmission’s reasonable market value was \$500.
- Low sued for conversion and, in the alternative, for negligence arising from the loss during the bailment.
- The case was tried to the court without a jury. The garage offered testimony about local garage customs and current practices, including that it was common to store vehicles outside in similar conditions.
- The trial court entered judgment for the garage on both theories and denied Low’s motion for a new trial. Low appealed.

## Issues

1. What duty of care does an auto-repair garage, as a bailee for hire, owe to protect a customer’s vehicle and its parts from loss?
2. After the bailee shows the loss resulted from theft by an unknown third party, who bears the burden of proving (or disproving) lack of ordinary care?
3. Did the evidence, including proof of local garage practices, support the trial court’s finding that the garage was not negligent and did not commit conversion?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the garage and affirmed denial of Low’s motion for a new trial.
- The court held that a bailee for hire such as a repair garage owes ordinary or reasonable care, not the “highest degree of care.”
- The court held that once the bailee shows the property was stolen, the bailor bears the burden of showing the bailee failed to use ordinary care.
- The court concluded the garage’s evidence—showing theft and describing customary local storage practices—supported the finding that ordinary care was used, and Low did not meet his burden to prove negligence.
- The court rejected the conversion claim because there was no evidence the garage exercised wrongful dominion over the transmission; the record indicated an unknown thief removed it.
- Although the trial court misstated the standard of care, the Supreme Court treated the error as harmless because the garage prevailed even under the more demanding standard.

## Legal Principles

- A bailee for hire is not an insurer of bailed property; the duty is ordinary or reasonable care under the circumstances.
- In Idaho bailment cases, when the bailee establishes that the loss occurred through theft, the burden is on the bailor to prove the bailee did not exercise ordinary care.
- Evidence of trade custom and local practice may be considered on the question of ordinary care, but it does not automatically set the legal standard.
- Conversion requires proof that the defendant wrongfully exercised dominion or control over another’s property in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s rights; loss caused by an unknown thief, without more, does not establish conversion.
- An incorrect statement of the governing standard may be harmless on appeal when it did not affect the outcome.

## Conclusion

Low v. Park Price Co. affirms that an auto-repair garage holding a customer’s car for repairs is a bailee for hire owing ordinary care, and that when the garage shows the loss was due to theft by an unknown third party, the customer must prove the garage failed to use ordinary care; because Low did not carry that burden and there was no proof of wrongful dominion by the garage, judgment for the garage on negligence and conversion was affirmed.


Low v. Park Price Co., 503 P.2d 291 (1972)