Nosse v. Rose

It is clear from the record that the cohi’t took the view that the bailee had no right to maintain an action against the third party causing the damage or injury to the automobile in possession of the plaintiff.. An examination of the authorities discloses that the law is well settled that a bailee is entitled to the possession of the property and has a special right or property in the chattel to the extent that the bailee may maintain an action for injuries sustained to the property while in the possession of the bailee.

The rule is succinctly stated in Van Zile on Bailments and Carriers,…