Wiley v. Locke

Citations

• 81 Kan. 143
• 105 P. 11
• 1909 Kan. LEXIS 317

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Warehousemen — Breach of Contract to Store Goods in a Certain Building — Injury by Fire. A warehouseman who contracts to store the goods of another in a brick building, but in violation of his agreement stores them in an adjoining wooden building, sheeted with iron, which is less secure, and the goods are burned in a fire which did not destroy the brick building or its contents, is liable for the loss of the goods.</p> <p>2. -Implied Duty of Warehousemen. In the absence of an express agreement the law implies that a warehouseman for compensation will exercise reasonable care to protect and preserve property entrusted to him for safe-keeping, and imposes a liability for a loss resulting from his failure in that respect.</p> <p>3. - Warehousemen Not Insurers — Extent of Duty. He is not an insurer of goods received for storage, nor is he required to provide a building which is secure from danger from within or without that could not be foreseen or provided against. He is required not only to place such goods in a building reasonably adequate and safe against danger from within, but should exercise due care to store them in a place where they will not be exposed to unusual hazards from without.</p> <p>4. - Injury by Fire — Election of Remedies. In an action to recover for the loss of goods entrusted to a warehouseman it is competent for the owner to set up his cause of action in two counts: one upon an express agreement as to the character of the building in which the goods are to be stored and the care to be exercised, and another based on the implied undertaking of the warehouseman to exercise reasonable care in providing an adequate and safe place for the goods delivered to him for safe-keeping.</p>