Facts
- Ziva Jewelry, Inc. employed Stewart Smith as a traveling sales representative who transported expensive sample jewelry in the trunk of his personal car.
- Smith kept the jewelry in a padlocked trunk; the padlock key was on the same ring as the car’s ignition key.
- Smith knew traveling jewelry representatives faced a persistent risk of theft and that thieves targeted unattended vehicles after trade shows.
- Smith brought his car to Rain Tunnel Car Wash, operated by Car Wash Headquarters, Inc. (CWH), where customers leave vehicles and keys with employees for washing and drying.
- Smith left his car and keys with a CWH employee but did not tell any employee that jewelry was in the trunk.
- While Smith was inside paying, he saw an employee signal that the car was ready and then walk away from it.
- Before Smith finished paying, a third party entered Smith’s car and drove it away.
- Police recovered the car shortly thereafter; the trunk had been opened and jewelry valued at roughly $850,000 was missing.
- Ziva sued CWH alleging (1) bailment liability for failure to return the jewelry and (2) negligence for failing to protect against third-party theft; the trial court entered summary judgment for CWH.
Issues
- Whether delivering the vehicle and keys to CWH created a bailment that included undisclosed jewelry locked in the trunk.
- Whether CWH owed a duty to protect Smith/Ziva from the criminal theft of the vehicle and jewelry by a third party under the circumstances.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for CWH.
- A bailment existed as to the vehicle, but not as to the jewelry in the locked trunk because CWH lacked actual or implied knowledge of the jewelry.
- CWH owed no duty to protect against the third party’s criminal theft absent evidence that the specific criminal conduct was reasonably foreseeable to CWH.
Legal Principles
- A bailment requires delivery and acceptance of possession of identified property, with an express or implied undertaking to return it or otherwise deal with it as directed.
- A bailee is not responsible for extraordinary or hidden contents of a bailed item unless the bailee has actual knowledge or implied notice making those contents reasonably expected within the bailment.
- In Alabama, absent a special relationship or special circumstances, a person generally has no duty to protect another from criminal acts of third parties.
- A duty to take protective measures against third-party crime arises only when the particular criminal conduct is reasonably foreseeable, commonly shown by prior similar incidents or specific notice of a probable threat.
Conclusion
Because CWH had no notice that high-value jewelry was locked in the trunk, it did not assume custody of that jewelry as a bailee, and because the theft was not shown to be reasonably foreseeable to CWH, CWH owed no duty to prevent the third-party criminal act; judgment for CWH was affirmed.