Donna and Timothy Mitchell rented a safe deposit box from a Dallas branch of the Bank of America. The lease agreement stated that the bank “had no possession or custody of, nor control over, the contents of the Box, and the Lessee [the couple] assumes all risks in connection with the depositing of such content.” The lease also permitted the bank to remove the box’s contents if the rental fee went unpaid.

Bank officers, believing the Mitchells were behind in their rental fees, drilled into the box and removed the contents, which they inventoried and sent to a central vault elsewhere. The Mitchells expressed their displeasure and, a week later, the bank returned the contents to the Dallas branch. The couple placed the contents into a bagunder the front seat of their car. Shortly after leaving the bank, the Mitchells had a flat tire. A stranger offered assistance. While they were all changing the tire, the bag disappeared.

The Mitchells sued the bank, claiming that its negligence enabled bank employees to learn of the box’s contents, orchestrate the flat tire, and steal the bag. 

The trial court gave summary judgment for the bank, finding that the contract language quoted above meant that there was no bailment, and no possible negligence. The Mitchells appealed.

Questions:

1. Was there a bailment?

2. What law governed the Mitchells’ lease of the safe deposit box from the Bank?

3. How did the box-rental agreement deal with the parties’ liability?

4. Why do the Mitchells argue that there was a bailment?

5. Why?

6. The box-rental agreement said the Bank had no possession, custody, or control over the contents of the box. Since bailment requires that the bailee exercise control over the property, how can there be a bailment?

7. Viewed as a bailment relationship, which party is liable for the loss?