Davis v Pearce Parking Station Pty Ltd - [1954] HCA 44

PEARCE PARKING STATION PTY. LTD.

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

QUEENSLAND. Contract-Bailment of motor vehicle for reward-Loss-Negligence by bailee-

Special clauses exempting bailee from liability for negligence-Construction- "Car garaged at owner's risk" and bailee not responsible for loss or damage of BRISBANE,

any description". July 28, 29;

The appellant parked her car at a motor car parking station owned by the SYDNEY,

respondent. Upon parking the car and paying the charges the appellant Sept. 8.

received a printed document containing two parts, a "delivery ticket" and a "parking check" Printed on the face of the " parking check" were the words For garaging, subject to the conditions set out on back hereof. This receipt must be exchanged at office for a delivery ticket before the motor vehicle can be obtained". On the back of the document were the words:

Conditions--The motor vehicle mentioned on the other side hereof is garaged at the owner's risk, and Gough's Auto Parking Station will not be responsible for loss or damage of any description. This check must be ex- changed for a delivery ticket at office to obtain re-delivery of vehicle. No servant or agent has any authority to waive or modify any of these conditions". The appellant went away leaving her car at the parking station and during her absence the car was stolen owing to the negligence of the respondent's servants. It was subsequently recovered by the police in a badly damaged

Held, that the exemption clause should be construed as excluding liability for negligence, and, accordingly, the respondent was, notwithstanding the negligence of its servants, not liable for the damage sustained by the appellant as a result of the theft of the car.

Held, further, that there could not be implied into the contract of bailment a term that the appellant's motor vehicle could not and would not be obtained

91 CLR 643

or removed from the respondent's premises save on presentation of the park- ing check" and obtaining in exchange therefor a delivery ticket.

Cases relating to the construction and effect of clauses absolving bailees from liability for negligence reviewed. Duty of bailee to notify police or bailor promptly on discovery of theft, considered.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (O'Hagan J.) Davis v. Pearce Parking Station Pty. Ltd. (1953) Q.S.R. 192 affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

This was an action for damages for breach of contract heard before a judge (O'Hagan J.) without a jury. The plaintiff, Virgilius Davis, claimed from the defendant, Pearce Parking Station Pty. Ltd., carrying on business under the name or style of Gough's Auto Parking Station". the sum of £490 3s. 1d. for loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff to her Holden sedan motor car by reason of the breach by the defendant of a contract of bailment made on 23rd January 1951 whereby the plaintiff garaged her car at the defendant's parking station, paid to the defendant a sum of two…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davis v Pearce Parking Station Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1954] HCA 44
Decision Date: 8 September 1954

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ms. Davis, brought an action against the respondent, Pearce Parking Station Pty. Ltd., for damages to her motor vehicle. Ms. Davis had parked her car at the respondent's parking station and received a parking check containing conditions of bailment. While the car was in the respondent's custody, it was stolen due to the negligence of the respondent's servants and subsequently recovered in a damaged condition. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the exemption clause printed on the parking check effectively excluded the respondent's liability for the loss and damage caused by the negligence of its servants, and whether an implied term existed in the contract of bailment that the vehicle could only be obtained upon presentation of the parking check and exchange for a delivery ticket.

The court reasoned that the exemption clause, which stated the vehicle was "garaged at owner's risk" and that the respondent would "not be responsible for loss or damage of any description," was sufficiently clear and comprehensive to exclude liability for negligence. The court noted that while such clauses must be construed strictly, in cases where the bailee's liability would otherwise arise from negligence, general words of exemption are generally interpreted to cover negligence, particularly when the bailee's liability apart from contract is not that of an insurer. The court also held that no implied term, as contended by the appellant, could be read into the contract, as it would be inconsistent with the express exemption clause.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, holding that the respondent was not liable for the damage sustained by the appellant's vehicle due to the negligence of its servants, as the exemption clause effectively excluded such liability.

Orders