“Thus, Ziva Jewelry cannot claim that CWH knew or that it should have reasonably foreseen or expected that it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted Smith’s vehicle for the purpose of washing it.” —Stuart, Judge 

Facts: Ziva Jewelry, Inc., is a jewelry wholesaler. Stewart Smith was employed by Ziva Jewelry as a traveling sales representative. In connection with the employment, Smith drove his own vehicle to meet clients and attend trade shows. Smith’s practice was to keep the jewelry in the trunk of his vehicle while he was traveling on business. He kept the trunk padlocked and kept the only key to the padlock on the key ring with his ignition key. One day, when Smith was traveling from a jewelry trade show, he stopped at Rain Tunnel Car Wash, owned by Car Wash Headquarters, Inc. (CWH). At Rain Tunnel, the driver leaves his or her vehicle with employees of the car wash, and the vehicle is sent through a wash “tunnel.” Upon completion of the car wash cycle, an employee drives the vehicle to another area of the car-wash premises to be hand dried. Once the vehicle is dried, the driver is signaled to retrieve the vehicle. Smith left his car and the keys with a car-wash employee. Jewelry worth $850,000 was locked in the trunk of the vehicle. Smith watched the car as it went through the car wash tunnel. He watched as an employee dried the vehicle. As Smith was standing at the counter waiting to pay the cashier, he saw the employee wave a flag, indicating that the vehicle was ready for Smith. The employee then walked away from the vehicle. While Smith was standing at the cashier counter, someone jumped into Smith’s vehicle and sped off. When the police recovered Smith’s vehicle about 15 minutes later, the jewelry was gone. Ziva Jewelry sued CWH to recover the value of the jewelry, alleging that a bailment had been created between Ziva and CWH and that CWH, as the bailee, was negligent in protecting the bailed goods. CWH defended, arguing that no bailment was created and therefore it was not liable for the loss of Ziva’s stolen jewelry. The trial court held that no bailment had been created and entered summary judgment for CWH. Ziva Jewelry appealed. 

Issue: Was a bailment created between Ziva Jewelry and CWH? 

Language of the Court: In this case, Ziva Jewelry cannot establish that CWH expressly or impliedly agreed to take responsibility for the jewelry hidden inside Smith’s trunk. Ziva Jewelry acknowledges that the jewelry was not plainly visible; that its presence was not made known to the car-wash employees; and that there was no reason that the employees should have expected expensive jewelry to be in the trunk of Smith’s vehicle. Thus, Ziva Jewelry cannot claim that CWH knew or that it should have reasonably foreseen or expected that it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted Smith’s vehicle for the purpose of washing it. 

Decision: The Supreme Court of Alabama held that no bailment had been created between Ziva Jewelry and CWH. The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to CWH. 

Ethics Questions: Did Ziva Jewelry have a good chance of winning this case? Why or why not? Do you think Smith was negligent in this case?