LOSS OF LUGGAGE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 95, 23 April 1945, Page 6

LOSS OF LUGGAGE

AFTER BUS JOURNEY PASSENGER'S CLAIM FAILS Arising out of the loss of luggage left at a motor bus depot, an appeal was heard in the Supreme Court today by Mr. Justice Callan against a judgment of Mr. J. Morling, S.M., nonsuiting the owner of the lost goods in a claim against the motor bus owners. The appellant was George Martin Clarence McKenzie (Mr. Chalmers) and the i espondents, Norman Edwin Collett (Mr. P. Jenkins) and Percy Laurence Laycock (Mr. Bone), the former being proprietor of the service and the latter manager of the Auckland branch. The facts, said Mr. Chalmers, were that on Saturday, September 2, last McKenzie, a Training College student now in the Air Force, was a passenger on Collett and Laycock's bus from Kawhia to Auckland. He had two suitcases and a piano accordion, and on arrival in Auckland had difficulty about getting a taxi. Collett, the driver of the bus, seeing his difficulty, suggested that the luggage be left in the bus depot and picked up later. McKenzie left one suitcase and contents (value £35 11/6) and the accordion (value £60) in the depot. He called to pick them up the following Monday and they could not be found. Police investigation could not find any evidence that the depot had been burgled, and the explanation was that a theft had occurred when the door had been left open and the depot unguarded. There was a notice in the depot that no responsibility was accepted for luggage left there. In a claim made before Mr. Morling, S.M., the magistrate held that Collett's liability as a common carrier ended when the luggage was placed on the pavement and McKenzie's attention was called to it, and that the relation of bailor and bailee between the parties had not been established. Mr. Chalmers submitted that in law Collett was liable as a common carrier, that he was in the relation of bailee, and that he was guilty of negligence. He submitted there was an agreed postponement of delivery till the Monday. His Honor, without calling on counsel for respondents, said the facts were that plaintiff relied on a casual conversation to place an obligation on the defendant, which was never intended, especially as plaintiff was well aware of the limitations of the depot and the danger. The Court agreed with the magistrate that Collett's liability as a common carrier ended when the luggage was placed on the pavement. It held also that the evidence did not show that Collett or Laycock was a bailee for reward. At the best there was a gratuitous bailment. It would be unjust and unlawful to give plaintiff the redress he sought. Collett was just doing a friendly act to plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed, with £12 12/ costs.