THE LIABILITY OF BAIILEES IN CONTRACTS OF BAILMENT: AN APPRAISAL OF JUDICIAL ATTITUDE IN

NIGERIA.

INTRODUCTION;- Bailment transcends the law of torts and contract and it is at the threshold of modern conceptions of con-

tort1. Though, an original common law concept it has evolved over the years and has become very endemic in contemporary

business transactions in Nigeria. Yet it is one aspect of law that is largely misunderstood, and sometimes discountenanced by

business-men and even legal practitioners.

This essay proposes to examine the law of Bailment within the Nigeria perspective and specifically to appraise the judicial

response to some practical as well as academic problems that are often encountered by the parties to a Bailment.

Bailment Defined.;- Traditionally, a bailment arises when a person called the bailor transfers his possessory rights in his goods to

another person called the bailee for safe-keeping, maintenance, carriage or repairs. The bailee is under an obligation to return

same at the appointed period, or ensure that the said goods is recoverable by the bailor in good order2. A bailment may be

gratuitous or be for reward, in the former sense thee is no contractual obligation between the bailor and the bailee save for his

common law obligations to be examined in the course of this essay. In the latter category of bailment, the rules of construction of

contracts are applicable, since the bailor is paying for the services to be rendered by the bailee, it is expected that a higher regime

of obligation and duty of care would be to be placed on the bailee.

The transactions that underlie a bailment are multifarious and in Coggs v. Bernard3, the following transactions were identified as

contracts of bailment;

(1) A depositum , i.e where a possessor looks after the owners goods with or without charge

(2)A gratuitous loan, as where a book is lent to a friend

(3)A hire, where the possessor pays for the use of goods as in a hire-purchase contract or equipment leasing

(4)A pawn age or pledge, where goods are delivered as security for a loan

(5) A wide class where goods are in the possessors hands for carriage from one place to another or for work or repairs to be done

to the goods, in return for some kind of payment.

In Martchem Industries Nig. Ltd v M.F.Kent West Africa Ltd 4 the Supreme Court of Nigeria outlined the categories of Bailment

to include the following:

(a) Depositum: On the deposit of a chattel with the bailee who is simply to keep it for the bailor without reward.

J.O. Odion Esq., LL.M. BL., Senior Lecturer;, Department of Business Law, University of Benin.
1
See. Flemming,J.G. The Law of Torts (The Law Book Limited 1987) 7th edition pp. 421-461
2
See Generally, Bode & Diamond; The consumer, Society and the Law (penguin Books) 1964 pp. 13-14
3
(1703) 92 ER 109 as quoted in B. Kanyip B.B. Liability in Bailment: A critical appraisal of the regime in
Nigeria (2002) Vol. I No. Benue State University Law journal p. 148.
4
(2005)10 NWLR (pt 934) 645 at 667
1
(b) Mandatum: where the bailee has without reward, agreed to do something for the bailor or with the chattel bailed.

(c) Comodatum: Where the bailor without recompenses, lends a chattel to the bailee for him to use.

(d) Pigmus: Sometimes called vadium or pawn, where the bailee holds the chattel confided to him as security for a loan or deed or

the fulfillment of an obligation.

(e) Location conductum, where chattel confided to him as security for a loan or deed or the fulfillment of an obligation.

In all these transactions practical problems of ability may arise particularly as it relates to the loss, theft, destruction or

deterioration in the value of the goods. The law of Bailment is in the main concerned with the arduous task of striking a balance

between the conflicting interest of the bailor and th bailee in this regard.

How well the law has been developed to address practical areas of conflict is the subject matter of this essay.

Liability of the Bailee A Contextual Analysis;- The liability of a bailee has been subject to a myriad of analysis, whilst most

commentators canvass a strict liability standard for a bailee who fail to return goods entrusted in their care as a result of their

carelessness, recklessness or negligence; There is however a convergence of opinion that a fault finding measure should be

imputed into contracts of Bailment, this is the tortuous angle to the resolution of conflicts arising from contracts of bailment.

This position was surmised by the Nigeria court of Appeal in the following manner:

The duty required of a bailee in respect of the bailment is no more than to take reasonable care to
protect the chattel against imminent danger. He must take all proper measures to protect the
bailors interest when the chattel is stolen or when claims adverse to the bailor are made to the
chattel. The bailee is not an insurer and he will not be held liable where the loss or damage
occurred without negligence on his part. The onus of proof is on the bailee to show that it was
not caused by his failure to take reasonable care..5

This position was supported by the same court in Leventis Motors Ltd v Nuineh 6 Here, the respondent who had left his Mercedes

Benz with the defendants for repairs, sued for the recovery of the car, when it was discovered that the respondent had sold same in

an auction sale. Whilst, the court was resolving sundry issues; it made the following pertinent remark on the liability of the

appellant as a bailee in custody of the respondents car.

The Bailee is under an Obligation to return the bailed chattel to the bailor at the end of the period
of bailment unless he can show good cause for not returning it. n the instance case, the appellant
as bailee of the respondents car for reward owed a duty of care to the respondent to ensure that
his car was returned to him after such repairs for which the car was deposited had been carried
out.7
Evidently, these authorities support the proposition that the bailiee liability is

founded on negligence, that to make him liable, it must be proven that he was negligent or even reckless in the handling of the

bailors Goods. This is in tandem with the position of the law as laid was laid down by the Nigerian Nigerian supreme court in the

5
See Comet SA. (Nig) Ltd v Babbit (Ng) Ltd (20D1) 7 NWLR (pt 712) pg 442
6
(1999) 13 NWLR (pt 634) p. 235

7
Ibid at p. 250

2
earlier cases of Armels Transport v Ogugua8 and Panalpina World Transport (Nig) Ltd v Waroboko 9, which were copiously

referred to and relied upon by the court of Appeal in the cases earlier discussed.

Specifically, in Chief Ogugua v Armels Transport(supra), the Appellant had left his car with the respondent at his automobile

workshop for repairs .In the course of the repairs the Nigerian civil war escalated and the respondent had to relocate thereby

abandoning the car. At the end of the war ,the Appellant traced the respondent and demanded for his car. The respondent could not

return it and sought to excuse himself from liability citing the exigency of the civil war. The trial court and the Court of Appeal

accepted this defence of the respondent, hence the final appeal to the Supreme court. The supreme court of Nigeria whilst

affirming the decisions of the lower court re-emphasized the relevance of Negligence in ascertaining the liability of a bailee in the

following terms;

In the case before us, it is our considered judgement that both in law and on facts the onus was
on the appellants to satisfy the court by showing that although they could not put their finger on
what actually happened to the plaintiffs car after they had abandoned their workship in 1968,
nevertheless, whatever did take place occurred notwithstanding all reasonable care having being
exercised by them to ensure the security of the car...10

The most crucial point to be noted in this case is that the Supreme Court, apart from emphasizing negligence, however placed the

burden of disproving same on the bailee. Accordingly, it is not for the bailor to prove that the bailee was negligent in handling the

goods in question, rather it is for the bailee to prove that he had done all that was necessary for him to secure the goods yet the

goods got lost, stolen or destroyed. This is akin to a strict liability standard as it entails presuming the bailee negligent at all times

where he had defaults in the discharge of his duty to the bailor. This is in conformity with the rules of Evidence Law which places

the burden of proving facts peculiar to the knowledge of a party on the said party. 11. This point was equally driven home by the

supreme court in the Panalpinas case in the following terms.

We think that whenever goods, belonging to one person is unconditionally entrusted to the care
of another person for safekeeping or for other purposes, whether gratuitously or for reward, on
the clear understanding that the goods in question shall ultimately be returned or delivered to the
owner, the failure to return or deliver the said goods as agreed upon raises a presumption of
negligence against the defaulting party.
If this indeed is the benchmark for measuring the bailee liability. There would be no problem, however practical implementations

of the aforesaid have often been difficult, particularly so, when the bailees infuse exclusion clauses into standard form contracts of

bailment. It would have been a simple routine for the bailor to identify the person in whose custody he had placed his goods and

8
(1974)3 sc 139

9
(1975) sc 29

10
Ibid at p. 146Incidentally, the loss of the car in this case due to the relocation of the
mechanic bailee during the Nigerian civil war
11

3
demand for same and no more, and his cause of action would succeed it appears that in contemporary times , some bailees now use

the regime of exclusion clauses to obviate this strict liability standard.

It is now proposed to examine some of these practical issues that may arise from specific types of contract of bailment.

A. Contracts of Carriage - Delivery of Parcels etc;- No other area of bailment contracts has elicited much commentaries as the

liability of the a contract consignor under of carriage. Whilst, a contract of carriage may attract some specific legal/judicial

response peculiar to its unique nature. It is not in doubt that it remains a veritable example of bailment. The consignor who

promises to deliver the parcel or goods timeously, and safely is in the stead of a bailee under our analysis. What has been the

judicial response to problems of loss, theft or destruction of parcel or goods given to a consignor for delivery to the consignee?

The Supreme court laid down the guiding principles for ascertaining the liability of the bailee in contracts of carriage in Broadline

Ent Ltd v. Monetrey Martime Corp12, here the appellants claimed damages from the respondents who as carriers failed to deliver

3, 434 bags of sugar out of a consignment of 100,000 bags. Whilst, the loss of the said bags of sugar was not in doubt, the thorny

issue which was however called for determination by the court was whether the appellants were negligent and consequently liable

for the said loss. In this regards, the respondents abandonment of his claim on the bill of lading did a fatal blow to his case, his

alternative claim for damages also failed on as he was not able to establish negligence against the Appellant and the trial courts

judgment on that ground alone was set aside. The most relevant portion of this judgment to our discussions hereunder is

reproduced as follows;

The liability of a bailee may rest on an express contract between him and the owners of the
goods concerned. However, notwithstanding, there is a general collateral liability in tort for
negligence which arises from the breach of a legal duty owed by the bailee to the owners of
goods.
Implicitly, the court per obiter dictum adjudged the defendant in the case negligent in the handling of the goods and

accordingly awarded consequential damages to the appellant .In addition, the court implicitly, adjudged the consignor to be a

bailee of the parcel given to him for delivery and therefore hi liability is not different from that of a bailee who had accepted

goods from a bailor for safe keeping.

In Comet LA. (Nig) Ltd v Babbit (Nig) Ltd13, The contract of carriage, involved the loss of a container alleged to be containing

327 cartons of spare parts to be shipped by the consignor into Nigeria for the benefit of the consignee- the respondent herein. Upon

the delivery of the consignment,it was alleged by the respondent that 17 cartons thereof was discovered missing and this suit was

for the refund of the value thereof and consequential damages.

At issue before the trial court was whether the Appellant - consignor herein was negligent in the handling of the consignment

leading to the loss of the said 17 cartons, whilst the respondent argued that the appellant was negligent, the respondent insisted that

12
(1995)9 NWLR (Pt 417)
13
(2001)7 NWLR (pt. 712) 442

4
it had done its best to safe guard the said container. There was no evidence of theft, fraud or tampering with the said container by

the Appellant or its Agents. It was therefore clear that the respondents case herein was based solely on a presumption of negligence

by the Appellant, particularly so when the Bill of lading exhibited by both parties showed that there was 327 cartons in the said

container. The trial court found in favour of the respondent hence the appeal.

Interestingly, the Appellant court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial courts judgment, what is however strange was the

appellate courts attempt to draw a dividing line between a contract of bailment and a contract of carriage; in the words of the court;

A contract of Bailment is a separate issue from a contract of affreightment; in proving the

contract of bailment, the contract of affreightment cannot be relied upon.14

We submit that this is evidently contradictory in terms as the courts ( both the trial court and the appellate court) relied heavily on

the Bill of lading which is the contract of carriage in deciphering the quantum of goods contained in the said container. If the Bill

of lading was not relevant to the bailment, the court ought not to have considered the defence of the Appellant that it delivered the

goods intact in the container, just as it was received by them, this crucial point becomes more relevant when it is clear that the

respondents herein did not allege or plead facts of tampering or theft of the said 17 cartons by the appellant. Our belief is that a

strict liability standard was imputed herein by the courts to serve as a deterrent to some reckless or negligent consignors who

charge heavily but fail to deliver when it matters most.

Similarly, in the earlier case of Odinnaka v Moghalu15, the issue of negligence of the carrier was restated when it was obvious

that the driver of the lorry had not exercised care and diligence in the safe custody of the goods he was to deliver to the

respondents. In the words of the court:

In the instant case, the second defendant who at the material time was the servant of the 1 st defendant was quite aware of the

nature of the road from Port Harcourt to Onitsha. He was aware it was unsafe to travel on that road at night..... It was therefore fool

hardy and at the same time reckless of him to set out at that time... it was negligent of him even after he had set out to leave a place

of safety i.e the police station to go and park on a lonely spot on a road prune to attack and freely use in the night by armed

robbers.

This issue of the liability of the bailee was further resolved in Oluigbo & Ords v Umeh16, the facts bother on the alleged theft of

the respondents money and goods by the conductor of the appellants commercial. The crucial issue of the poof of the transporters

negligence was addressed by the court in the following manner:

14
Ibid at pg
15
(1992)4 NWLR (pt 233)1 See also Panalpna World Transport Ltd V Wariboko (supra), See also, Asa fa Foods
Factory v Airaine (Mg) (2002)12 NWLR (pt 781) 353.

16
(2004)6 NWLR (pt 870) 621 at 625

5
 whenever, goods belonging to one person are unconditionally entrusted to the care of another
person for whatever purposes... he has the onus of proof to show that the loss or damage to the
goods entrusted to him, occurred without negligence on his part. In the instant case, the
appellants had the onus to prove that the loss of the respondents money did not result from their
negligence. They however failed to do so in the circumstance, the trial court was right when it so
held:

It is therefore clear from these plethora of cases that a consistent approach by the courts in Nigeria is to treat the
consignor as a bailee of goods, whose liability can only be circumscribed by a fault finding measure.

AIRLINE CASES;-Most of the cases under this head were not resolved on the issue of the liability of the baliee vis--vis the

bailor. At times, the issues raised were anchored on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter in the first place and the

quatum of award to be given to the successful plaintiff. At times, the validity of exclusion clauses tied to the contracts take the

center stage. Yet it can still be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of each case, that the gravamen of the case is indeed the

liability of the baliee under the bailment contract of carriage. A bailment in Air Transportation would arise in respect of the

passengers goods and not the passenger himself. Accordingly, whilst the technicalities of Aviation rules and practice as well as the

various conventions can be readily invoked in appropriate cases, the common law principles of bailment remain relevant in the

determination of the liability of the Airliner with respect to misplaced or destroyed goods. The principles of bailment is relevant in

determining the liability or otherwise of the carrier whilst the Aviation rules and/or conventions would be relevant for the purposes

of determining the scope and extent of liability.

A review of some cases under this head would justify the above assertion.

In Sudan Airways co Ltd v Mohammed 17 The Appellant, an Airline Company engaged in the carriage of goods and persons on

board its airline, failed to deliver the respondents languages at the agreed destination in Kano, this was in spite of the respondent

having to pay excess luggage fee of N7,560,in addition to his original boarding fee of N18,60. In a suit to recover damages for the

loss of his property, the critical issue of the jurisdiction of the court was raised by the appellants herein, as the appellant who did

not contest the claim at the high Court raised the issue of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal and succeeded. It appears that if

the matter had being commenced in a court with requisite jurisdiction the damages awarded in this case by the trial court may have

being sustained by the appellate court.

Similarly, in Egypt Air v AIhaji Umaru TaAmbu18 , The respondent had used the appellant at the High Court of Kano claiming a

total of N378,024. being the total value of textile materials and treads entrusted by the respondent to the appellant for foreign by

air from Cairo Egypt to Kano in Nigeria and general damages for non delivery of the goods to the respondent. The action was

equally aborted on appeal on the basis of want of jurisdiction of the trial state high court, and the matter was consequently

transferred to a Federal High Court19

17
(1998)1 NWLR (pt 532) 156
18
(1997)11 NWLR (pt 528) 179
19
see also Kabo Air Limited v Oladipo (1999)10 NWLR (pt 623) 517 (pt 442
6
These case palpably, deal more with the issues of jurisdiction and the legal import of the Warsaw Convention on the liability of the

Airline companies in question. However, within the context of this essay, they reveal the precarious position a passenger faces, as

he entrusts his goods to the Airline for carriage to his ( her) destiny. The Airline company remains bailee in the circumstances and

undue reliance on technicalities may tend to obscure a judicial focus on its liability to deliver the passenger (bailors) goods safely

and timeously. A stop gap measure is the de-emphasis of the distinction between contracts of carriage property so called and

contracts of bailment supliciter. It is suggested that in these cases of overlaps, the bailment contract should take a center stage.

This position appeared to have been taken by the court of Appeal in Kabo Air Ltd v Oladipo20 where on similar facts bothering on

the loss of the Appellants luggage on his trip from Kaduna to Lagos, the crucial issue of the carriers liability (though banished to

the back stage) attracted some comments from the esteemed judges of the court of Appeal who resolved the issue of jurisdiction in

favour of the appellant. The court proceeded to comment albeit obiter on the indices for the determination of the air lines carriers

liability in the following terms.

From the context of Article 22 the of Order, the liability of an airline is predicated on the
declared total weight of the luggage lost by the passenger or the claimant. Therefore the claimant
must plead and prove how the liability of the airline is determined, otherwise these would be no
basis of assessment and award of damages.

The comment is heartwarming on the score that the court did accept the fact that in appropriate circumstance the airline as a carrier

can be held liable for the loss of the passenger (bailors) good lost in transit, though the crucial issue of proof remains stumbling

blocking this regards.

SAFE CUSTODY ITEMS;- One of the duties that a bank renders to its customers is the provision of a safe haven for the deposit

and security of valuable items of its customer. A safe deposit account may be opened by the bank in favour of the customer. The

customer pays some commission as charges for this account, in return the bank gives him a safe deposit box for the safekeeping of

the valuables which are kept in the banks strong room.

In a standard form safe deposit agreement, the bank does not enquire as to the contents of the safe custody box nor is the customer

obliged to disclose same to the Bank. Furthermore, the customer most often deal with the safe deposit box in utmost secrecy 21.

The receipt evidencing the deposit of the said items usually contains a clause stipulating that the contents of the safe custody box is

unknown to the Bank in its officials. As replete in most standard form contracts there is usually embedded in the receipt an

exclusion clause limiting and or excluding the liability of the bank for the loss, theft and or destruction of the safe deposit box or

items contained therein.

Interestingly, these terms of the safe custody account raise fundamental legal questions on the protection of the customers interest

in the circumstance. As a starting point it is evident that the safe custody account contract is a species of Bailment. The bank as a
20
(1999)10 NWLR (pt 623) 517 at 524
21
See. Palferman David. The law relating to Banking services. 4th Edition (1993) Longmans Publication U.K.
page 32-33
7
baliee has in exchange for consideration agreed to keep safely the said items and return same to the customer bailor upon

demand22.

What needs to be resolved at this stage is the extent this bailment analogy could be stretched to protect the bailee the customer.

In order to achieve this; these onerous terms of the safe custody account need to be re-examined. For instance, how would the

Liability of the bank (who does not know the contents of the safe custody box) be measured? What is the legal implication of the

exclusion clause on the liability of the bank to return the contents of the safe custody box or its contents thereof to the customer?

What is the relevance of insurance in the circumstance in the event of the loss theft and or destruction of the safe custody items?

This questions becomes more pertinent when the said loss, theft or destruction is not linked to the negligence, recklessness or

misfeasance of the Bank?

In resolving some of these thorny issues, a restatement of the general principle of bailment would reveal that ordinarily ,the bank

would not be liable for the loss theft or destruction of the safe custody items if it is not due to its negligence or recklessness or

outright misfeasance23.

The burden of disproving or rebuffing the presumption of negligence is placed on the bank as consistent with the cases cited

earlier. The standard of proof placed on the bank in the circumstance remains unclear as no judicial authority can be sourced on the

subject matter presently. However as consistent with well laid down principles of law a reasonable mans test would suffice in the

circumstances.24

With regards to the liability of the bank for the loss or theft /destruction of the safe custody items unknown to it. A learned

commentator is of the view that this lack of knowledge of the contents is immaterial in the determination of the Banks liability 25

On the issue of insurance, it is now trite law that anybody in possession of an item is in a good position as well as the owner to

insure same against any peril. They are both adjudged to have insurable interest in the goods 26. By implication the bank as a bailee

has a duty to insure the safe custody items in the event the bailor customer had not already insured them.

With regards to the validity and applicability of exclusion clause embedded in the receipt, it is also evident from the preponderance

of cases, that the court is enjoined to adopt a restrictive interpretation of the said exclusion clause so as to limit its application to

the said contract27. Most importantly the well known concept of fundamental breach not availing an exclusion clause needs to be

22
See Generally PACETS: Law of Banking (1998) 2 edition F. 140, paragraph 2

23
See Commet S.A. Nig. Ltd v Babbit (Nig) ltd (supra) see also; Ogugua V Armels Transport (Supra)
24
Leventis is Motors v Nunieh (supra) as contrasted from Ogugua v Arnmels Transport Co Ltd (supra)
25
See Pagets Law of Banking Ibid at 140
26
See Law Union Rock Insurance Ltd v Onuoha (1998)6 NWLR (Pt 55) 576 C
27
SeeNarumal and Sons Ltd v Niger Benue Trading Co Ltd (1989)2 N.W.L.R(PT.106) 730
8
reemphasized to show that the Bank should ordinarily not be allowed to rely on the said exclusion clause when it is in fundamental

breach of the safe custody Contract28.

Whilst we await the supreme courts interpretation of these salient issues raised and addressed so far, it needs to be mentioned that

the High Court of Justice, Asaba Judicial Division in the unreported case of Esther Damasus V First Bank of Nigeria Plc(Suit

NoA/17/2003) in a judgment delivered on the 25th January 2008, has resolved some of these issues albeit temporarily pending

appeal (if any).29

ESTHER DAMASUS V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC EXAMINED;- The plaintiff in this case commenced this action

claiming special damages for the loss of her jewelries and other ornamentals worth $52,000. She also claimed general damages of

N50, 000000m from the defendant for the said loss.

The plaintiffs case as revealed in the pleadings and the evidence before the court was that the plaintiff who had acquired all these

items over the years put same in a safe custody box with the Asaba Branch of the defendant bank. She was issued with a safe

custody receipt which contained the usual onerous terms outlined above i.e the contents unknown to the defendant Bank as well as

the exclusion clause excluding the Banks liability for the loss, theft/destruction of the safe custody items.

The evidence before, the court also revealed that on the l4th May 2003, there was a violent robbery in the said Asaba branch of the

defendant, wherein monies, safe custody boxes and other valuable items and documents belonging to the bank and its customers

were carted away by the dare devil armed robbers. The plaintiffs safe custody box and its contents thereof were alleged by the

defendant to have been taken away by the said robbers.

In the course of the trial, whilst the plaintiff maintained that the defendant as a bailee for consideration was liable and ought to

refund the value of the items stolen by the robbers, it was the case of the defendants that they took all reasonable steps to protect

the said safe custody box and its alleged contents. They pleaded and led evidence to show how it took security measures to protect

the plaintiffs safe custody box nature of the said robbery. Interestingly, these material facts were not controverted by the plaintiff

either by their pleadings or evidence.

Furthermore, whilst the defendant argued that the exclusion clause availed it of any liability for the said loss, the plaintiff argued

that the said clause was unreasonable and unconscionable are therefore not valid in the circumstance. It was also contended on

behalf of the defendant that it was not liable for the contents of the safe-custody unknown to it and that in any event the armed

robbery incident operated as a force mature or an act of God which extinguished the liabilities of the respective parties under the

contract.

Whilst reviewing the case of the parties and the evidence before him, the learned trial court Judge found as a fact that that the

defendant was a bailee in consideration who was duty bound to ensure the safety of the plaintiffs valuables kept in its custody.

28
27 See Narumal v NB.T.C. (1989)2 NWIR pt 106) 730
29
The Author was involved in the defence of the Defendant in this case
9
However, the court found as a fact that the defendant had done all that was humanly possible to protect the plaintiffs valuables

but the violent nature of the robbery of 14th May 2003 made it impracticable to secure the said valuables. In essence, the learned

trial court judge held that the defendant was not negligent in the handling of the plaintiffs valuables. Accordingly, it dismissed the

plaintiffs case in its entirety. The learned trial court did not make any pronouncement on the validity or otherwise of the exclusion

clause inserted into the said safe custody contract as it became academic.

Conclusion ;- This decision is obviously in tandem with the prevailing jurisprudence on the basis of the liability of bailees of

goods in Nigeria. It emphasizes our analysis hereinbefore that for a bailee to be held liable for the loss or destruction of goods kept

in his custody he must be adjudged to be negligent in the handling or management of the said goods. The learned trial court judge

was obviously swayed by the plethora of Supreme Court as well as Court of Appeal decisions on this issue. It is our hope however,

that when the opportunity avails itself the Appellate Courts would make firm pronouncements on the validity of exclusion clauses

in contract of bailment as well as the duty to insure the valuables kept by the bailee. A pronouncement on the issues aforesaid

would help in dousing the feeling of injustice a bailor like the plaintiff would feel in the aftermath of the judicial stance on the

non-culpability of the bailee in the circumstances aforesaid.

10