Peet v. Roth Hotel Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · 1934 · Property

PropertyBailmentsbailmentmutual assentjewelryhotelordinary carecare commensurate with risk

Facts

Plaintiff delivered her engagement ring at the cashier's desk of defendant's hotel for delivery to Ferdinand Hotz, a jeweler and regular hotel guest then staying there. The cashier accepted the ring, wrote Hotz's name on an envelope, and placed the ring on the desk or counter within easy reach of persons outside the cashier's window, after which it was immediately lost or stolen. Plaintiff and the jeweler were not told of the loss until about a month later, when it was discovered that the ring had never reached him. Plaintiff sued the hotel as bailee for the ring's value, and the jury fixed that value at $2,140.66.

Issue

Whether the hotel became a bailee as a matter of law when its cashier accepted plaintiff's ring for delivery to a hotel guest, despite not appreciating the ring's unusual value, and whether the hotel could avoid liability on that ground. The case also presented whether the trial court erred in instructing on ordinary care, burden of proof, and plaintiff's ability to continue the action after assigning the claim to her insurer.

Rule

Mutual assent necessary for a bailment may be manifested by conduct as well as words. When property is delivered and accepted with its identity and outward character obvious, a bailment is formed even if the bailee does not know or correctly estimate the property's value. A bailee must exercise ordinary care, meaning the care an ordinarily prudent person would use in the same or similar circumstances, with the amount of care measured by the risk; and in Minnesota the bailee bears the burden of establishing before the jury that its negligence did not cause the loss.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Minneapolis, Nora Feldman walked into the front desk area of Lakeview House, a fictional hotel, and handed desk clerk Eli Moreno a pearl necklace in plain view, asking him to give it to a registered guest, Dana Kruse, when Dana returned that evening. Eli placed the necklace in an envelope labeled with Dana's name, but later claimed the hotel never became a bailee because he assumed the necklace was only costume jewelry and not especially valuable.

Is Lakeview House most likely a bailee of the necklace?

Explanation. A bailment arises when property is delivered and accepted with mutual assent, and that assent may be shown by conduct as well as words. Where the article's identity and outward character are obvious, the bailee's mistake or ignorance about value alone does not defeat the bailment. Here, the clerk knowingly accepted a visible necklace for delivery to a named guest, so the hotel is a bailee even if he thought it was inexpensive. (Derived from Peet v. Roth Hotel Co. (1934).)