Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 7.2
SEMOON V. THE WOOSTER SCHOOL CORP.
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury
2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1816 [July 13, 2010]
FACTS:
The Plaintiff, Suk Semoon, allegedly loaned 7 sculptures to the Defendant, The Wooster School
Corporation and the Wooster Community Art Center (WCAC).
WCAC is controlled and operated by the Wooster School.
The Defendant took possession of the 7 outdoor sculptures and displayed them outside.
There was no writing regarding the agreement which was for an open-ended term.
The Plaintiff checked on her sculptures between 2001 and 2004 and they were in good condition.
During this time the WCAC director was replaced.
In 2006, the Plaintiff requested the return of the sculptures and was informed that 3 were missing
and 1 was damaged.
The Defendant testified that at least one of the sculptures was destroyed when construction
occurred on the premises and was discarded. They are unsure of the whereabouts of the
remaining sculptures.
ISSUE: Was there a breach of a mutual benefit bailment that entitled plaintiff to relief?
RULE: “The bailee in a mutual benefit bailment has an absolute duty to return the object to the bailor
(or to dispose of it as the bailor directs) and becomes liable to the bailor for failing to do so correctly.
The bailee in a mutual benefit bailment is under a duty to use ‘reasonable care’ in taking care of the
object in possession.”
REASONING:
1. Plaintiff delivered the 7 sculptures to the Defendant, thus a bailment existed.
2. The director of WCAC accepted delivery and used the sculptures outdoors.
Additional Information:
The full version of this case provides an example of the common law statute of limitations.
This case also illustrates an implied in fact contract given the absence of a writing.
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without
the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
The measure of damages is also outlined in this case. The damage expert evaluated the loss at
$58,000 and the court decreased the amount by the 50% commission that is typically paid.
