This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D operates an automobile repair garage. P brought a car to D's garage for repairs. It was necessary to remove the engine from the car. The engine was removed and D stored the car in an unfenced area between the garage and an adjacent street. Just by coincidence, its transmission disappeared. D told P that the transmission had been stolen. Exactly when and by whom the transmission was removed are facts which remain unknown. P demanded reimbursement. D disclaimed any obligation to compensate P. P sued D for conversion and, in the alternative, for negligence. The lost transmission had a reasonable market value of five hundred dollars. D admitted its status as 'bailee' of the P's automobile. In its defense at trial, D introduced testimony as to the currently prevailing custom and usage regularly observed by other service garages in the area. After a nonjury trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the D. P appealed. P contends initially that the court erred in admitting the customary evidence because the customary practices of the Pocatello garage owners constitute negligence as a matter of law and a deliberate disregard of a known high risk of theft.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.