## Facts

- EMA Holding Co. owned an Auburn, New York warehouse complex and leased it to Stoda Corp., a companion corporation of Stott & Davis Motor Express, Inc., sharing common ownership and officers.
- Singer stored air conditioners with Stoda and arranged for additional storage; Singer’s goods were transported on a Stott & Davis trailer and delivered to Stoda at the warehouse.
- Singer’s agent inspected the facility with corporate officers linked to both entities and asked about the sprinkler system.
- A Stoda officer knew the sprinkler system was shut off but represented that it was active; the sprinkler system was inoperative throughout the storage period.
- Evidence also indicated the absence of guards or watchmen at the facility.
- A fire occurred at the warehouse, destroying Singer’s goods (and other stored property).
- Singer sued Stoda and Stott & Davis for negligence and for breach of bailment/contractual duties; Singer also sued the landlord (EMA) based on the fire loss.

## Issues

1. Whether Singer’s proof established a bailment with Stoda and a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to go to the jury when the goods were destroyed by fire while in Stoda’s custody.
2. Whether Stott & Davis had any continuing bailment or duty after delivery of the goods to Stoda’s warehouse.
3. Whether EMA, as owner/lessor, owed liability comparable to a bailee or otherwise had an actionable duty for the loss of stored goods.
4. Whether Singer proved an express or implied contractual undertaking to store the goods in a “fireproof” or specially protected building supporting a contract-based claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that dismissal of Singer’s negligence claim against Stoda at the close of Singer’s proof was error and reinstated that claim for jury consideration.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Singer’s contract-based/breach-of-bailment-contract claim against Stoda for failure to prove a promise of “fireproof” or specially protected storage.
- The court affirmed dismissal of all claims against Stott & Davis because its carrier-related bailment ended upon delivery to Stoda for warehousing.
- The court affirmed dismissal of claims against EMA because it was a landlord/lessor, not a bailee, and no basis for liability on the record was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A bailment for mutual benefit arises when goods are delivered to and accepted by a warehouse for storage.
- In a bailment, proof that goods were delivered in good condition and were not returned (including due to fire while in the bailee’s custody) establishes a prima facie case and shifts to the bailee the burden to show due care.
- A carrier’s bailment/duty generally ends when it completes delivery and relinquishes custody; absent continued control or undertaking, it is not liable for later warehouse conditions.
- A landlord/lessor who does not take possession or control of stored goods is not a bailee; liability is not imposed on a bailment theory without a special undertaking or other actionable basis.
- Negligence liability of a bailee does not establish contractual liability for special fire protection absent proof of an express or implied promise.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Singer’s negligence claim against the warehouse operator because Singer’s proof of bailment and nonreturn of the goods permitted an inference of negligence for the jury, but it left undisturbed the dismissals of claims against the carrier and landlord and rejected Singer’s attempt to impose contract liability for “fireproof” storage without proof of such an agreement.


Singer Co. v. Stott & Davis Motor Express, Inc., 79 A.D.2d 227, 436 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1981)