Which of the following was the result in the case referenced in the "Case Nugget," Ziva Jewelry Inc.,v.Car Wash Headquarters Inc.,in which the plaintiff left his car and keys with a car wash employee and a thief drove off with the car abandoning it unharmed after stealing jewelry valued at over $800,000 from the car's trunk?
A) That the car wash was liable to the plaintiff because the car wash accepted responsibility as a bailee.
B) That the car wash was not liable to the plaintiff because the car wash employees had no notice they were taking responsibility for so much jewelry.
C) That the car wash and the plaintiff would be required to split the loss.
D) That the car wash was liable to the plaintiff for the loss because the car wash had not issued a valid disclaimer.
E) That it would be unconscionable to hold the car wash liable for the loss.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the dismissal of the case on grounds that a bailee is not liable for the loss of the contents of a bailed vehicle when the bailee did not have actual or implied knowledge of the contents of the vehicle.

Which of the Following Was the Result in the Case