HARBOR ONE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND BREUIL BOAT CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALFRED PRESTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harbor One and Breuil Boat Co. left a yacht with Preston for sale under a bailment agreement. The yacht was stolen, and Preston relied on a printed contract clause waiving liability for theft. The court held the waiver clause was ambiguous and unenforceable, affirming judgment for the yacht owner.
The court held that the contract provision was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable as a waiver by the bailor (plaintiff). Exculpatory provisions must be strictly construed and resolved against the drafting party. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of negligence by presenting no evidence of ordinary care.
“At trial the plaintiff proved the bailment and loss of his yacht while in the possession of the bailee. In doing so, the bailor made out a prima facie case. The duty then devolved upon the bailee to go forward with the evidence and show that it exercised ordinary care.”
Establishes the burden-shifting framework in bailment cases where bailor proves bailment and loss, shifting duty to bailee to prove ordinary care.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellee) left his yacht with the defendant (appellants) for sale under a consignment bailment agreement for mutual benefit. The yacht …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bailment For Mutual Benefit cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was defendant in a non-jury trial which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, appellee. The plaintiff proved that he had left his yacht with the defendant for sale under an agreement which amounted to a bailment for the mutual benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant. The yacht was stolen and lost, whereupon the plaintiff instituted this action.
By way of affirmative defense, the defendant in its answer asserted that a printed portion of the “Consignment Contract” indicated that the plaintiff had waived any right he might have against the defendant for theft or casualty. The specific portion of the contract in question reads as follows :
“Due to limited physical facilities, the consignee hereby waives all responsibility for theft or any casualty.”
*479At trial the plaintiff proved the bailment and loss of his yacht while in the possession of the bailee. In doing so, the bailor made out a prima facie case. The duty then devolved upon the bailee to go forward with the evidence and show that it exercised ordinary care. Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 213 F.2d 561 (5th Cir.1954). At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict which was denied. Defendant’s case was limited to the exculpatory provision in the bailment contract referred to above. The defendant presented no evidence to establish that due care had been taken to protect the boat from damage or theft. The lower court found that the printed clause of the contract in question was ambiguous and therefore legally insufficient to excuse the defendant and accordingly, found for the plaintiff.
We agree with the trier of fact. A reading of the contract provision reveals that it attempts to set forth a waiver by “the consignee”. The defendant was the consignee although the defendant now attempts to have this court construe the clause as meaning that the plaintiff-consignor waived his rights. At the least such a statement is ambiguous and should be resolved against the party who drafted the agreement, in this instance the defendant. In particular, exculpatory provisions should be strictly construed. 8 Am.Jur.2d, Bailments § 128 and cases cited at footnotes 19 and 20. See also 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts § 87. We hold that .the contract provision was ineffective as a waiver by the plaintiff who was the consignor, and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that it was negligent. Cf., Adelman v. M. & S. Welding Shop, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 802, 803.
The appellant has raised one other point concerning the amount of damages allowed for the loss of the yacht. We hold that the lower court did not err in determining its fair market value.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ITT Consumer Servs. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 256 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…e bailee. In so doing the subrogee of the bailor made a prima facie case as to the bailment. The duty then devolved upon the bailee to go forward with the evidence and show that it exercised ordinary care. Harbor One, Inc. v. Preston, Fla. App.1965, 172 So. 2d 478; Porter v. Izlar Motor Co., 134 Fla. 798, 184 So. 329. The appellant offered testimony m support of its explanation of concerted illegal activity by its employees. Certain of this supporting testimony is at least inconsistent, and it is susceptible…
-
Hussmann Corp. v. UPS Truck Leasing, Inc., 549 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ng and one stationary. The "popular meaning” is "contact with another object." Id., § 42:207. Theft insurance covers stealing, larceny, pilferage (Id., § 42:262) and/or willful taking or appropriation (Id., § 42:263). . Harbor One, Inc. v. Preston, 172 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Cf. National Merchandise v. United Service Auto Assn., 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . Thus, expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another); or more accurately enumeratio un…
-
Int'l GEM Stones, Inc. v. Harper-Robinson & Co., Inc., 299 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…he bailee. In so doing the subrogee of the bailor made a prima facie case as to the bailment. The duty then devolved upon the bailee to go forward with the evidence and show that it exercised ordinary care. Harbor One, Inc. v. Preston, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 478; Porter v. Izlar Motor Co., 134 Fla. 798, 184 So. 329.” Although the appellee concedes the nature of the action and the law as set forth in the cited cases, he urges, however, that the evidence did not support a verdict for the plaintiff because it…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 213 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Adelman v. M & S Welding Shop, Inc., 105 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)