Ultzen v Nicols
Rule established
A bailment may arise by conduct without any request from the owner. Where a person voluntarily assumes possession and control of another's goods, he becomes a bailee and owes the duty of care of a bailee.
Facts
- The plaintiff entered the defendant's restaurant as a customer.
- He was wearing an overcoat.
- A waiter, without any request from the plaintiff, took the coat from him and hung it on a hook behind him.
- The coat was stolen while the plaintiff was dining.
- The plaintiff sued the restaurant proprietor for the value of the coat.
Issue
- Whether a restaurant which voluntarily takes a customer's coat, without any request, becomes a bailee so as to be liable for its loss.
Held
- The restaurant was liable. By taking the coat and hanging it up, the waiter, acting within the scope of his employment, assumed possession and control of it on behalf of his employer. That was sufficient to create a bailment even though the customer had not asked for the coat to be taken. Having become a bailee, the restaurant owed the ordinary duty of care and had not discharged it.
Ratio Decidendi
Bailment does not depend on a formal contract or an express request. It arises whenever one person voluntarily takes possession of goods belonging to another, whereupon the duty of care attaches. A person who assumes control cannot escape the obligations that control brings.
How to use it in an exam
- Standard illustration that a bailment may arise by conduct and be gratuitous yet still carry the S.151 duty.
- Distinguish the situation where a customer hangs his own coat on a hook without any staff involvement, in which case no possession passes and there is no bailment.
- Contrast with Kaliaperumal Pillai v Visalakshmi (1938), where the owner retained control and no bailment subsisted.
- Reinforces that under S.151 the standard of care is uniform and does not depend on who benefits from the bailment.
Source
Source: [1894] 1 QB 92; classic illustration of bailment arising by conduct; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.