Garcia v. Halsett

In Garcia v. Halsett (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 319, the plaintiff, a child, was injured at a launderette by a malfunctioning washing machine. He urged on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of bailment (i.e., lease) of the washing machine. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the facts did not establish a bailment of the washing machine as a matter of law. It explained: "In order to constitute a bailment, possession of the article bailed must be given or delivered to the bailee. Plaintiffs contend that plaintiff Arthur had at least constructive possession of the washing machine during the time he was using it. However, this argument is also without merit. Plaintiff Arthur assumed no responsibility for the safe-keeping of the machine, and did not have the right to remove it or tamper with the mechanical parts of the washer. Plaintiff merely acquired a license to use the washing machine and was not a bailee." (Id. at p. 324.) In that case, the launderette operator who maintained four rows of coin-operated washing machines manufactured by Philco-Bendix in continuous operation for public use, was held liable as a marketer, the court observing ( id., at p. 326): "Although respondent is not engaged in the distribution of the product, in the same manner as a manufacturer, retailer or lessor, he does provide the product to the public for use by the public, and consequently does play more than a random and accidental role in the overall marketing enterprise of the product in question."