Ziva Jewelry, Inc. v. Car Wash Headquarters, Inc.

897 So.2d 1011 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Smith is P's traveling sales representative. Smith traveled with samples of expensive jewelry. Smith knew that sales representatives in the jewelry business constantly faced the risk of robbery. The thieves are aware of where and when jewelry trade shows are held, and they will follow a jewelry sales representative to and from a trade show, waiting for an opportunity to steal the jewelry. Smith knew that thieves were most likely to strike when the jewelry or the sales representative's car was left unattended. Smith kept the jewelry in the trunk of his vehicle while he was traveling on business. He kept the trunk padlocked, and he kept the only key to the padlock on the keyring with his ignition key. Smith and his wife were returning from a jewelry trade show. They stopped at a restaurant and they noticed an unidentified person peeking in the window of the restaurant. After eating, the Smiths returned to their vehicle and drove to Vestavia. Smith's wife went into a store to shop and Smith went to get his car washed at D. Smith left his car and his keys with a car-wash employee. The jewelry was locked in the trunk. He told no one at D of the presence of the jewelry. While Smith was standing at the cashier counter waiting to pay, someone jumped into Smith's vehicle and sped off. The car was recovered 15 minutes later, but the jewelry was missing from the trunk. The value of the missing jewelry was $851,935. P sued D for D's alleged failure to return the bailed vehicle and its contents to Smith. D moved for a summary judgment claiming that no bailment existed as to the jewelry, that Smith had been contributorily negligent, and that D could not be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party. Chris Finley, a D employee, testified that, on the day of the incident, he had noticed an unidentified male on the premises of the car wash. Finley testified that he knew that this unidentified male was not an employee. P argued that Finley failed to report this unidentified male as a 'suspicious person' and, therefore, failed to follow the procedures set forth in D's 'manual.' P argued that Finley had acted negligently in leaving Smith's car unattended with the keys in the ignition. A criminologist testified that the theft of a vehicle from the premises was foreseeable and that D did not comply with generally accepted principles of security and crime prevention for businesses. D argued that no bailment existed for the jewelry. D got the summary judgment and P appealed.