What is the standard of care required of a bailee in respect of the goods bailed to him? Please indicate the difference between English law and Indian law on the subject.
Standard
of care required of a Bailee.-In accordance with Section 151, a Bailee is obligated to care for the goods entrusted to him as the man of ordinary prudence, in similar circumstances, would take his own goods from the same description. The duty of a Bailee for hire is no greater than the duty of a free Bailee. Both must care for the goods entrusted to them, since a reasonably prudent and careful man can be expected to take his own properties of the same volume, quality and value.
At the Board of Trustees of the port of Madras Chennai v. Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd., Chennai & another 2008 (4) M.L.J. 350 (Mad), the court has held that, in terms of article 151 of the Contract Law of 1872, in all bail cases, Bailee has the duty to care for the rescued assets as in the case of its own assets, as a man of ordinary prudence.
Under section 152, a Bailee is not responsible for any loss caused by accidents. He is responsible only for his negligence. A Bailee is required to take reasonable care to protect the property from her bail. In case of loss, the responsibility falls on the Bailee to demonstrate that it occurred due to lack of ordinary care on their part.
In Union of India v. United India Fire, etc. Insurance co.; Ltd., A.I.R. 1981 Mad. 162, the cotton bales belonging to the consignee company were unloaded by the consignee company itself and kept out of the railway sheds and covered with tarpaulin. The consignee company did not have sufficient warehouse facilities and its many products, including bales of cotton that were deposited inside and outside the shed. The company had provided security guards, and railway protection personnel were also there to care for these goods. The company did not receive delivery of the merchandise despite repeated requests to do so, and 13 days after unloading the side bales, the cotton bales caught fire for unknown reasons. Railroad staff took all possible measures to extinguish the fire. It was argued that the railway authorities could not be held liable for negligence in these circumstances.
Different types of bonds are recognized in England and the standard of care that the Bailee must take varies according to the nature of the bond. The stander rests on consideration. A free Bailee is therefore responsible only for gross negligence. In the case of an item loan, the borrower is liable even for slight negligence. In the case of hiring and engagement, the Bailee must exercise ordinary diligence. But now, even in England, the tendency is to eliminate the different degrees of upper and lower case and make it uniform as in India, that is, the diligent attitude of an ordinary prudent man.
But these two exceptions are still recognized in England, namely, common innkeeper and carrier, which bear a more extensive responsibility than that of an ordinary Bailee. An innkeeper is responsible more extensively than that of an ordinary Bailee. An innkeeper is responsible for the loss of his guest's property if it were on his premises without proof of negligence on his part.
A common carrier is responsible for the security of the goods entrusted to him in all events, except when loss or injury arises by the act of God from the king's enemies.
In India no distinction is recognized as to the different degree of care in different cases, whatever the object or purpose of the bond. In India, the assignee in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the salvaged things, if he has dealt with the goods rescued to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take their own assets of the same volume, quality and value as the salvaged assets.
It would be noted that this responsibility of a dealership to be as careful as a man of ordinary prudence would be is a legal responsibility and cannot be eliminated by contract. A contract, therefore, that purports to exempt a dealer from liability for negligence is invalid. [Bombay Steam Navigation Co. v. Vasudeo, (1927) 52 Bom. 37]
In India, the responsibility of the common carrier is the government according to the English Common Law modified by the Carriers Act III of 1865, but does not include the railway whose responsibility is governed by section 72 of Act IX of 1890 which says that In India, the responsibility of the common carrier is the government according to the English Common Law modified by the Carriers Act III of 1865, but does not include the railway whose responsibility is governed by section 72 of Act IX of 1890 which says that the Railway Company must only exercise the care of an ordinary prudent man according to Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contracts Law.
In India, a hotelier's liability to his guest is governed by section 151 of the Contracts Law and is liable as a depositary or bailee.
