ABC Equipment Company$($ABC$)$ has its factory and offices located in the downtown area of Awlbony, New York. Parking is limited on its property for employees and the company does not charge for use of the lot $,$ which is on a first come first use basis. Next door is a parking garage owned by Toad Services$($Toad$)$ that charges a fee to park your car, but at a discount arranged with them by ABC. At least half of the ABC employees use the Toad garage because it is cheaper than anywhere else. ABC also requires its employees to wear uniforms and protective clothing at work which they change into in a locker room. They cannot have their wallets, jewelry, or car keys in their uniforms for safety reasons. There is a large sign on the entrance to the locker room stating "ABC is not responsible for any loss or damage to any items of property left in the locker room." There are however no warning signs at the entrance to or around the company owned parking lot $,$ nor any limitation or release of liability agreements signed by the employees, concerning damage to their vehicles while parked on the lot. Toad next door, has a release of liability provision in bold print on its voucher given to the employee when they park their car, and a large sign at the entrance saying it assumes no responsibility for loss or damage to property while in their garage. Assume Ed is an employee who regularly uses both the lot and the garage, and that he has had continual problems with annoying damage to his car that fall under his auto insurance deductible, such as flattened tires, broken tail lights, and deliberate scratching. He wants Toad garage and his company ABC to reimburse him but they both refuse saying they have no liability. What is your opinion and what theories did you consider in this decision. Finally, assume Ed regularly uses the locker room at ABC and leaves his wallet and watch in his locker, and that on one occasion the locker was opened and his wallet and watch were taken.

Does ABC have any liability? Are they a bailee?