Odger's English Common Law

638 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
deposited, and sometimes upon the character and competence-
and particular dealings of the parties. Even a gratuitous-
bailee is bound to use whatever skill he possesses with
reference to the specific subject-matter of the bailment ; for
instance, a person conversant with horses might be answerable
'for damage happening to a horse whilst under his gratuitous-
care or management, for which an individual not so skilled
might be irresponsible. 1
(ii.) Bailments for the exclusive benefit of the bailee are
usually in the nature of loans and, except in the case of a
loan of money, the thing bailed must be itself restored to the
bailor. The degree of diligence here required from the baileo
is very much, if not precisely, that required from a gratuitous-
bailee, who possesses skill and is therefore bound to exercise-
it. A person, who borrows anything for use gratuitously,
must be taken to have represented himself to the bailor as a
person of competent skill. He " is bound to the strictest
care and diligence to keep the goods lent so as to restore them
back again to the lender." 2
(iii.) But most bailments are for the benefit of both parties
—such as the pledge, hire or carriage of a chattel, or the
deposit of it for reward. The general rule in such cases is-
that ordinary diligence on the part of the bailee is required,
and he will therefore be responsible for ordinary neglect.*
This is so, whenever the chattel is hired for use by the
bailee and the bailor receives payment or other considera-
tion for its use. So where goods are deposited for reward
with a bailee, he undertakes to use proper care that they
shall be safely preserved from loss or injury. 4
This much i&
implied by law from the bailment, unless it is otherwise
expressly agreed between the parties. 8 Where the agreement
between them is in writing the liability of the bailee must, of
i Wilson v. Brett (1843), 11 M. & W. 113.
2 Per Lord Holt, C. J., in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 1 Smith's L. C, 12th ed. t
at p. 200 ; and see the judgment of Lord Campbell, C. J., in Dansey v. Richardson
(1864), 3 E. & B. at p. 167.
8 See, for instance, Scaife v. Farrant (1875), L. JR. 10 Ex. 358 ; Traiers 8? Sons, Ltd.
v. Cooper, [1915] 1 K. B. 73 ; Coldman v. Hill, [1919] 1 K. B. 443.
* As to the liability of a livery stable-keeper, who for reward receives a
carriage into his care and lodges it in his coach-house, see Searlo v. Laverick
(1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 122.