Theft and Bailee's Obligation of Diligence
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA trial court had ruled that an employer was liable for damages caused by the theft of property entrusted to an employee who was unable to prove that the theft occurred despite all precautions being taken, which constitutes a failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the exercise of due diligence; the high court quashed this decision, reasoning that while the entrustment of property imposes a general obligation of diligent care on the bailee, the mere occurrence of theft does not automatically imply fault on the part of the bailee, as the obligation is one of means, not of result, requiring proof of the bailee's negligence to establish liability.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IATheft and Bailee's Obligation of Diligence: A trial court had ruled that an employer was liable for damages caused by the theft of property entrusted to an employee who was unable to prove that the theft occurred despite all precautions being taken, which constitutes a failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the exercise of due diligence; the high court quashed this decision, reasoning that while the entrustment of property imposes a general obligation of diligent care on the bailee, the mere occurrence of theft does not automatically imply fault on the part of the bailee, as the obligation is one of means, not of result, requiring proof of the bailee's negligence to establish liability.