Ekholm v. Wilkins Dodge, Inc.

The majority concedes that a conventional bailment relationship did not exist between plaintiff and defendant and that the *66defendant did not breach any warranty of title but nonetheless finds a duty on the part of the defendant toward the plaintiff concerning his automobile. It cites no authority for its conclusion. We have heretofore reached a contrary result. Characterizing this duty as arising from “a border-type bailment claim sounding in tort,” the majority affirms imposition of the loss upon the defendant.

Minnesota law provides no legal basis for such an affirmance. It is clear that…