Question

Your friend Bob owns a 2019 Chevrolet Corvette. Your friend Bob never lets you drive his Corvette. Your friend Bob, does however, go out of town a lot. One day, Bob gives you a call and asks if you can drive him to Quincy Airport. Bob even agrees to let you drive the Corvette to take him to the airport. Wanting to get behind the wheel of Bob’s 2013 Corvette, you agree to drive Bob to the airport. The day of the flight, Bob drives to your house in the Corvette. Bob hands you the keys, and you drive Bob to the airport without incident. You make it home from the airport without incident. You park the Corvette in your driveway, next to your car. Three days pass without incident (Bob’s trip is for a week). On the fourth day, you notice someone broke the driver side window of Bob’s Corvette. You tell Bob what happened. Bob becomes upset. Bob says the Corvette was “your responsibility” and that you owe him for the damage. Bob sues you for the damage done to the Corvette.

Do you have to pay Bob? Was a bailment created? If so, what type of bailment? What is the appropriate duty of care, if any? Be sure to fully explain your answer, after all, Corvette damage (no matter how slight) is never cheap.

Answer 1

Explanation of Situation after Bob left:

Car was safely parked after dropping Bob to the Airport without any incident. Car was parked by me in driveway next to my car.  On the foiurth day after Bob left, someone broke the driver side window of Bob’s Corvette. Bob sues for the damage thinking it was my responsibility.

Here, Bob is Bailor and I am Bailee.

I don't have to pay to the Bob because I accepted to keep the car with me for due care. It was safe driveway as I had also parked my car nearer to Bob's Car.

According to appropriate Duty of Care, rule is that the bailee is expected to return to its owner the bailed goods when the bailee’s time for possession of goods (car) is over, and he is presumed liable if the goods (car) are not returned. But that a bailee has accepted delivery of car to keep with him, does not mean that he is responsible for their safekeeping no matter what are the circumstances.

Thus, the law of bailments does not apply a standard of absolute liability and the bailee is not an insurer of the car's safety. His liability depends on the circumstances.