| liability for theft? | there does not need to be a contractual agreement for the bailee to be liable for theft, just that theyre a bailee. usually a bailee is only liable when the theft was negligent on their part. |
| liability for servants and independent contractors? | a bailee is liable for the negligence of servants
a sub-bailment is made to an independent contractor, who is then liable (or not, if the sub-bailment is made by a contract which includes a term excluding his liability) for safeguarding the goods, the bailee is liable to the bailor for the actions or omissions of the sub-bailee |
| what does the 'pioneer container' case state? | a sub-bailee can be sued directly by the bailor if they have a contractual agreement |
| true or false: there are different standards of care for different types of bailee. | false, there is now a general standard of 'reasonable care' |
| what is a plea of jus tertii? | a defence where the defendant states that the goods are not the property of the claimant and so they were not lost through their negligence |
| who does the burden of proof rely on? | the bailee must establish the burden of proof they are innocent
> Joseph Travers & Sons Ltd v. Cooper |
| true or false: the bailor is responsible for the actions of the bailee, including illegal acts | true, Morris v Martin & Sons - in this instance, the plaintiff deposited her fur stole (a sort of short cape) with her furrier for cleaning. The furrier did not carry out cleaning himself but passed it on to the defendants (who became sub-bailees). The stole was stolen by one of the defendants’ staff. The defendant was held liable in trover for the act of its servant, even though it was a crime |
