Stacy v. Knickerbocker

Wisconsin Supreme Court · Torts

TortsBailmentNegligencebailmentbailee for hireordinary carenegligencecausation

Facts

The plaintiff's horses were hired out to the defendant ice company under a bailment contract, with the only express term being that Clifford would drive them. While the horses were being used in scraping work on the ice, they became frightened, uncontrollable, and ran onto thin ice, fell into deep water, and drowned. The plaintiff claimed the ice company was negligent because it did not fence the thin ice, did not warn Clifford of its location, and did not have ropes and appliances ready to rescue the horses. The court found the horses were hired to work at a point safely distant from the thin ice and that the work would have progressed farther away from it.

Issue

Whether a bailee for hire is liable for the loss of bailed horses when the horses became frightened and drowned, based on allegations that the bailee failed to fence thin ice, warn the driver of its location, or keep rescue equipment on hand. More specifically, the question was whether any such alleged omissions constituted negligence that caused or contributed to the loss.

Rule

In a bailment for hire, absent additional express contractual terms, the bailee is obligated only to exercise ordinary care over the bailed property. If the property is lost or injured while in the bailee's possession without negligence or fault by the bailee, the loss falls on the owner; alleged omissions do not create liability unless they amount to negligence that caused or contributed to 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 Madison, Wisconsin, Elena Ruiz rented her mule team to North Channel Landscaping so it could pull grading equipment for a day. While employee Sam Porter was driving, a sudden thunderclap startled the mules, which bolted across a worksite and plunged into an unfenced drainage trench; evidence showed the animals were completely uncontrollable once they bolted, and a lightweight temporary rail on the trench would have splintered on impact.

If Elena sues North Channel Landscaping for the loss of the mules, what is the best answer?

Explanation. A bailee for hire is liable only for loss caused by a want of ordinary care. If the bailed property is lost without negligence or fault by the bailee, the loss remains with the owner. Here, the key point is causation: even if a temporary rail had been present, the facts show the frightened mules were uncontrollable and would have broken through it, so the omission did not cause or contribute to the loss. (Derived from Stacy v. Knickerbocker (n.d.).)