Legal Opinion

David v. Lose

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1966No. 39923PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

When the plaintiff entrusted his mare to the defendants for breeding purposes and paid for this service, a bailment for hire was created. See 7 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Bailments, Sections 3 and 6. The bailee for hire is obligated by law to exercise ordinary care in the safekeeping of the bail- or’s property, e. g., Hotels Statler Co., Inc., v. Safier (1921), 103 Ohio St. 638. The bailee also promises to return the property undamaged upon the termination of the bailment, 8 American Jurisprudence 2d, Bailments, Section 164.

Therefore, the bailor can sue the bailee for breach of either duty, the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Agricultural Ins. v. ConstantineOhio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Collins v. Click Camera & Video, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Maloney v. General Tire Sales, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Parrish v. MacHlanOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Pelmar USA, L.L.C. v. Mach. Exchange Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Garofoli v. Whiskey Island Partners, Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API