1. If Smith’s car was never recovered, would CWH be liable as a bailee for the car?

2. When a bailee takes a car as part of a bailment relationship, isn’t the bailee also assuming liability for what is inside?

3. Is Smith left completely without recourse or could he advance a different legal theory? If the police determined that the theft was an “inside job” involving CWH’s employees, how would that impact your analysis?

Smith was employed by Ziva Jewelry, Inc. (Ziva), as a traveling salesman. In connection with his employment, Smith drove his own car to meet with potential customers and traveled with samples of expensive jewelry, which he typically kept locked in the trunk. In August 2000, while returning from a trade show, Smith stopped to get his car washed at a car wash owned and operated by Car Wash Headquarters (CWH). Smith left his keys with a CWH employee, watched the car as it went through the tunnel, and observed an employee driving the car a short distance to the drying area. Smith did not alert any CWH employee to the con-tents of the trunk. After the car was dried, the atten-dant signaled to Smith that the service was complete. As Smith paid the cashier, someone jumped into Smith’s vehicle and drove off. Although the police located Smith’s car in just 15 minutes, the jewelry, valued at over $850,000, was gone and was never recovered. Ziva sued CWH, alleging that CWH, as bailee, took possession of Smith’s car and of the jewelry inside and that CWH failed to exercise due care to safeguard and return the bailed car and contents to Smith. The trial court granted CWH’s motion for a summary judgment on the grounds that no bailment of the jewelry had been created. Ziva appealed.

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of CWH. The court held that Ziva could not establish that CWH expressly or impliedly agreed to take responsibility for the jewelry hidden inside Smith’s trunk. Since Ziva acknowledged that the jewelry was not plainly visible, there was no reason for the employees to foresee that the trunk contained expensive jewelry. The court ruled that Ziva could not claim that CWH knew or that it should have reasonably foreseen or expected that it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted Smith’s vehicle for the pur-pose of washing it. 

“Thus, there is no evidence indicating that CWH expressly or impliedly accepted responsibility for the jewelry in the trunk of Smith’s vehicle. Without express or implied acceptance by the purported bailee, a bailment cannot arise.”