美国财产法(7)

在英美法系委托占有译为"Bailment",是指非财产所有者受财产所有者之委托对财产所实行的合法占有。占有者不是财产的真正主人,而只是受财产所有者（bailor）的委托而代行保管,受托人（bailee）有义务照管该财产并如约将其送交财产的所有者。

委托占有分为三类:

1.完全为委托人利益（Sole benefit for bailor. i.e. "Take

care of this for me whileI'm away."）

2.完全为受托人利益（Sole benefit for the bailee. i.e. Borrowing items.）

3.双方互利（mutual benefit of both parties. i.e. coat check）

上述三种受委托人的义务如下:

A. 1: only for gross negligence

B. 2: only for slight negligence

C. 3: only for ordinary negligence

D. Cases of misdelivery-split

a. Majority- bailee strictly liable

b. Minority- apply standard of care for the appropriate

type of bailment.

E. Involuntary bailments and finders

a. A finder can be deemed a bailee of an item he finds, but

most of the time finders will not be regarded as

involuntary "gratuitous" bailees. Even in the case

of

finders, there is probably some benefit to the finder.

b. A potential finder has no obligation to take a found

good into possession, but if she does, she becomes a

bailee to the true owner.

在英美法中,委托占有有三个构成要件:（1）委托人必须对所委托的财物拥有所有权或占有权；（2）委托人必须将对所委托的财物的排他占有（Exclusive

Possession）和实际控制权交付与受委托人；（3）受委托人必须自愿接受和控制所委托的财物,并且知道他有按委托人的指令归还该财物的义务,愿意承担对该财物的保管和控制的责任。

2、相关案例分析

为了清楚地了解委托占有的这三个构成要件,我们首先来看看下面芝加哥与田纳西州的停车场丢失车辆的两个截然不同的判案:

威廉先生将车驶近了芝加哥市机场的普通停车场,停放在停车场的停车位上,由于该停车场停车并不需要预先付停车费,而在将车开离停车场时在出口处交付停车费,于是威廉先生锁好车,然后自己拿着车钥匙离开停车场去办理自己的事。当威廉先生办完事回到停车场时,发现自己的车丢失了。威廉先生只有持车辆的保险合同向保险公司索赔,保险公司赔偿了威廉先生车辆丢失的损失,同时也从威廉先生那里取得了代位权（Submgation）,保险公司以停车场作为受委托人应该承担车辆丢失的损失为由,向停车场提出索赔要求。停车场认为威廉先生只是租用了停车场的一个停车位,在威廉先生与停车场之间并没有委托占有的委托关系。芝加哥法院判决认为,停车场并未实际控制威廉先生的车辆,威廉先生和停车场之间也不曾有任何口头或其他方式的协议,因此,威廉先生与停车场之间并没有产生委托占有的委托关系,所以停车场不应赔偿威廉先生丢失车辆的损失。

另一个案例是由田纳西州最高法院所审结的一个有关现代化停车场车辆丢失赔偿的上诉案。案情大致为:上诉人是田纳西州一家名为海特的多层高级旅馆的主人。紧挨着旅馆主楼的后面是一个具有现代设备、现代管理方式的现代化停车场。该停车场只有一个进口和一个出口,单一进口处由售票机控制着,单一出口处由一位停车场工作人员控制,出口与进口相对,停车场工作人员在出口处的一个小亭子里可以随时观察到进出口的一切动静。停车场雇佣几名保安人员,都身着特制的保安服装,平时有两名保安值班,负责在旅馆以及所属场地包括停车场巡逻。停车场不仅供旅馆的住客使用,同时停车场经营也面向社会公众提供有偿使用服务。一天早上,被上诉人艾伦先生将自己的一辆新轿车开到该停车场的进口处,从自动售票机上取下停车票,售票机便自动打开停车场进口的栏杆,允许艾伦先生的车进入。艾伦先生将车开上四层,停放好车、锁上、取出钥匙,乘电梯离开了停车场。当艾伦先生几小时后返回停车场取车时,发现自己的新轿车不见了,艾伦先生找到出口处的停车场工作人员,得到的答复是:"噢,车没有从这里开出来。"艾伦先生便报告给上诉人雇佣的安全部门,然后又报告了警察,但艾伦先生的新轿车始终没有找到。艾伦先生作为该案的原告,对海特旅馆提起诉讼,要求被告赔偿。法院做出了有利于原告的判决,被告不服,向田纳西州最高法院提起上诉。

田纳西州最高法院经审理后,法官的判词为:在本案中,法院考虑到当车主将汽车停放在一个商业经营性的停车场而被盗丢失的情况下,便存在该停车场主人自然和外延的责任问题。下级法院根据本州以前的判例裁定,当车主将汽车停放在一个现代的、室内、多层楼与大型旅馆连接在一起的由上诉人所经营的停车场,并锁好自己的车时,委托占有的委托关系便已产生。田纳西州最高法院判决这个裁定是合理的,因而维持下级法院的判决,旅馆应当赔偿原告的损失。

有关Bailment的经典案例

1. Parking Management, Inc. v. Gilder, （1975）；

pg. 119, briefed 9/13/94

Facts: AA parked his car in a pay lot owned and

operated by BB. After parking, he opened the trunk in plain

view of some employees and placed his lady friend's cosmetic

bag inside, and locked it. The rear of the car was exposed to

the aisle. When he returned, he found his car damaged by being

pried open. A non-jury trial awarded him damages, the appellate

court reversed, and this court decided to hear en banc.

Issue: Was the parking garage liable for the damage

under an implied contract of the circumstances？

Holding: Yes. The operator of a commercial "park-and-lock"

parking garage is required to exercise reasonable care to avoid

damage to vehicle parked in his lot if the circumstances create

a reasonable expectation in the mind of the car owner that such

care will be undertaken.

Reasoning: The court distinguished this case from

previous park-and-lock cases based on the facts that there were

several garage employees around, who by admission of their supervisor,

were supposed to be watching the area and acting as a "kind

of security". This admission, that security was a major

concern, led the court to believe that it was reasonable for

the AA to conclude that his car would receive some protection

from the presence of these employees.

2. Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas （1972）； pg.

122, briefed 9/12/94

Facts: Wife AA left her purse at the table in

the dining room at the Hilton. Upon discovering the purse, the

bus boy took it to the cashier according to hotel instructions.

Thereafter, the cashier handed the purse over to a man claiming

to be the husband BB. The next morning, AA's notified the hotel

of the loss and claimed the purse contained $13,000 worth of

jewels. AA's filed suit for negligence, and won $11,000 plus

interests and costs at the trial court. BB appealed.

Issue: Was there a bailment created by the cashier

although she may have had no intention of establishing one？

Holding: Yes. If a commercial enterprise which

caters to the public holds "lost-and-found" items

as a normal course of business, then they create an implied

bailment for any items that they recover on their property which

were misplaced by their owners.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that there was a

constructive bailment because the AA, if she knew that she had

misplaced the purse, she would have reasonably expected the

finder to hold and protect it for her until she could reclaim

it. Further, they said that the bailment was for mutual benefit

of both parties. The hotel derives a benefit of return business

for those who they return lost property to.

Dissent: The dissent argued that no bailment was

created because there was no intention to create a bailment

（bad argument）。 He further said that even if there were a bailment

for the purse and the normal expected contents of a purse, there

was no bailment for the jewels, which he doubted were there

in the first place.

Notes: 1. In Ampco Auto Parks, Inc. v. Williams,

a commercial auto park was held not to be a bailee of the contents

of a car trunk, concededly bailed, if those contents were not

reasonably to be found in a trunk （e.g. a Pre-Columbian Bell

from 1,000 BC.）。 In Samples v. Geary, a coat check at a dancing

school was found not to be a bailee for a fur piece wrapped

inside a checked coat, because there was no knowledge of the

fur, therefore no contract （Bull-oney）。 In Peet v. Roth Hotel

Co., a person who accepted possession of a ring for delivery

to another was a bailee, even though he did not know the ring

was valuable. 2. In Cowen v. Pressprich, a securities broker

became an involuntary bailee when a bond was delivered to his

office by mistake. He gave it to a person he thought was the

messenger of the true owner. He was found not to be liable for

conversion because he was trying lawfully to return it to the

owner, and divest himself of any implied bailment. Had he retained

it to try to protect it for the owner, he would then have been

a voluntary bailee and absolutely liable for protecting it