McGeehan, Bigelow and Smalley. The opinion of the court was delivered by Smalley, J.s.c.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff entered in the Camden County District Court.
On April 11, 1951 at approximately 6:30 P.M. the plaintiff and her husband visited a restaurant owned and operated by the defendant corporation. Upon entering, the plaintiff checked a sheared beaver coat in the check room which was provided for that purpose. Plaintiff and her husband stayed for dinner and a floor show. Thereafter a fire was discovered which originated in the wall between the dining room and the kitchen and which eventually destroyed the building and the plaintiff never recovered her coat. She sued defendant for the value of the coat and was granted judgment by the Camden County District Court sitting without a jury.
The legal principles which are controlling in the instant case can be stated briefly. When goods are delivered to a bailee in good condition and are returned in a damaged state the law presumes negligence and casts upon the bailee the burden of going forward with the evidence to show that the loss did not occur through his negligence, or if he cannot affirmatively do this, that he exercised a degree of care sufficient to rebut the presumption of it. Proof of loss or injury while in the custody of the bailee establishes a prima facie case against the bailee to put him upon his defense. New Jersey Manufacturers Association Fire Insurance Company v. Galowitz , 106 N.J.L. 493 (E. & A. 1929). This is so even though the burden of proof of the cause of action rests with the plaintiff and never shifts from him. Bachman Chocolate Manufacturing Co. v. Lehigh Warehouse and Transportation Co., Inc. , 1 N.J. 239 (1949).
Consequently it was only necessary for the plaintiff to prove the bailment and the loss of the coat in order to establish her prima facie case. This she did. The question which then arose was whether or not the defendant sufficiently proved that the loss of the coat did not occur through its
negligence or that it exercised a degree of care sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence.
We cannot agree with the conclusion of the district court that the defendant did not offer the quantum of proof sufficient to rebut the presumption. The evidence clearly displayed that the conduct of the defendant was that it had exercised reasonable care under the circumstances and that the loss had occurred despite such care.
The defendant produced as a witness a fire chief who testified that about one month before the fire he had inspected defendant's place of business and found that the premises complied with all fire laws applicable to that type of structure. The inspection report noted that there were a sufficient number of fire extinguishers on the premises and that they were adequately and properly located in the building of the defendant.
Testimony was offered to prove that the defendant, through its employees, wasted no time in summoning the fire department. The plaintiff herself testified that the fire started at approximately 8:30 P.M. and the firemen were on the scene at 8:40 P.M. Before the firemen arrived, defendant's employees utilized all available extinguishers and other means of fire fighting equipment. One of the employees remained on the roof with a garden hose even after the arrival of the fire companies. The firemen kept the fire under control for about one and one-half hours when there occurred a sudden shift in the wind which fanned the flames and caused the destruction of the building.
When the fire was discovered, the hat check girl remained at her station and distributed 17 coats to patrons who presented their claim checks. She left the building only when the smoke and flames forced her to withdraw. There is no testimony that the plaintiff ever presented her coat check during the fire and in fact did not leave by the exit where the check room was located.
In light of the proofs offered by the defendant, we can come to no other conclusions than ...