dolution

Describe the Hadfield v. Gilchrist case on pages 394-395 of the textbook. In your description, provide a summary of the facts, the legal issue(s) presented to the court, and the court’s decision. In your opinion, was the Hadfield v. Gilchrist case decided correctly? Explain your answer.

The Case on Page 394-395: “Mark Hadfield, a medical student in Charleston, South Carolina, went to retrieve his 1988 Lincoln Continental from a parking space on private property near the medical school where his wife had parked the car earlier that day without permission. The property owner had called Gilchrist Towing Co., and the auto had been removed. When Hadfield discovered that the car had been towed, he telephoned Gilchrist Towing and was told that he would have to wait until the next morning “to retrieve the car after paying towing and storage fees. The next morning, after paying the charges, he went to the storage lot and found that his car had been extensively vandalized along with a number of other vehicles. The owner of the company, S.S. Gilchrist, refused to pay the estimated cost of repairs, $4,021.43. Hadfield brought suit, contending that a constructive bailment for the mutual benefit of Hadfield and Gilchrist had been cre-ated, and that Gilchrist breached his duty of care to Hadfield. Gilchrist contended that he towed the vehicle pursuant to Charleston Municipal Ordinances, which are for the sole benefit of the vehicle owners, intended to preserve their property. As such, the relationship created was a gratuitous bailment, which limited his duty of care. Gilchrist contended he was not liable for damages caused by unknown vandals.

DECISION: Judgment for Hadfield. Where a city ordinance is utilized as the legal justification for taking possession of a vehicle on private property, the person or entity lawfully acquiring possession of the property under the ordinance becomes a constructive bailee as a matter of law. A constructive bailment, for the mutual benefit of Hadfield and Gilchrist, was created. The burden of proof in a constructive bailment case rests upon a bailor to prove a prima facie case, and once so proven, the burden shifts to the bailee to show the use of ordinary care in the storage and safekeeping of the property. The fact that a guard was not on duty at the impound lot and the only other security for the vehicles was a chain-link fence, a reasonable basis existed to conclude that Gilchrist failed to exercise ordinary care. [Hadfield v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88 (S.C. App. 2000)”