Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Johnson & Towers Baltimore, Inc. v. Babbington
Citations: 288 A.2d 131; 264 Md. 724; 1972 Md. LEXIS 1190Docket: [No. 248, September Term, 1971.]
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; March 10, 1972; Maryland; State Supreme Court
In Johnson. Towers Baltimore, Inc. v. Babbington et al., the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed a negligence claim stemming from the theft of employees’ tool boxes from Johnson. Towers’ shop. Babbington and Langenfelder, whose tools were stolen, argued that Johnson. Towers was negligent in safeguarding their property. The jury awarded Babbington $900 and Langenfelder $300, prompting Johnson. Towers to appeal. The court noted that employees were required to provide their own tools, which were impractical to take home daily, leading to their storage in the shop. The shop, located in a large, well-lit masonry building on a busy highway, had four overhead doors equipped with locks and additional security measures. Johnson. Towers argued that these measures made unauthorized entry impossible. However, Babbington and Langenfelder contested this, claiming some locks were inoperative and that the doors could be manipulated from the inside or outside. The incident occurred after a police report about an abandoned truck led to the discovery of a broken window in one of the doors, allowing access to the locking mechanism. The court classified Johnson. Towers as a bailee for mutual benefit, imposing a duty of ordinary care in protecting the tools. The jury was instructed on negligence and contributory negligence, and Johnson. Towers failed to object to this instruction during the trial, barring it from raising this issue on appeal. The appeal centered on Johnson. Towers' assertion that the court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming lack of evidence for negligence. In cases of mutual benefit bailment, when a demand for the return of bailed property is met with an unexplained refusal, a prima facie case of negligence arises against the bailee. However, if the bailee can demonstrate that the loss resulted from an excusable cause, such as burglary, the defense is established unless the bailor proves that the bailee's negligence contributed to the loss. The bailor bears the burden of proving that the burglary was due to the bailee's negligence. Courts typically hold that the issue of the bailee's negligence is a matter for the jury to decide. In this case, evidence suggested that the security measures at Johnson Towers were inadequate, including ineffective locks and vulnerabilities that allowed access after a break-in. Given this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that the bailee failed to exercise ordinary care. Consequently, the denial of a directed verdict was upheld, affirming the jury's findings based on appropriate evidence. The appellant is responsible for costs.