Allen v. Hyatt Regency-Nashville Hotel Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1984. Facts: The Hyatt Regency—Nashville Hotel (Hyatt) (defendant) owns and operates a hotel in Nashville. In the rear of the hotel, there is a parking garage that spans several stories. The garage has only one entrance and exit. On February 12, 1981, Allen’s husband parked Allen’s car in the garage. In order to enter the garage, Allen took a ticket from a machine situated at the entrance of the garage, which opened the security gate for Allen. Allen drove to the fourth floor, parked and locked the vehicle, and exited the garage with the key. Several hours later, Allen returned, only to find that the car was gone. Procedural History: The courts below held that a bailment relationship was created when Allen parked and locked the car in the Hyatt’s garage. Issue: Is a bailment relationship implied between a parking garage and a customer where the customer has a reasonable expectation that the parking garage will keep the car safe? Holding: Yes, A bailment relationship is implied between a parking garage and a customer where the customer has a reasonable expectation that the parking garage will keep the car safe. Reasoning: In Tennessee, courts have analyzed the liability of parking garages towards customers in the context of a bailment relationship. Where the parking garage fails to uphold the bailment obligation, a presumption of negligence applies. In Dispeker v. New Southern Hotel, 213 Tenn. 378 (1963), a hotel guest brought his car to a bellboy, who then parked the car in a lot next to the hotel. Although the owner kept the car keys, the owner showed the attendant how to start the car without the key. The attendant later took the car without authorization and damaged it. The court found that a bailment relationship existed between the garage owner and the hotel guest, making the garage owner liable to the guest. In Scruggs v. Dennis, 222 Tenn. 714 (1969), a customer entered a garage by receiving a ticket from a machine. He drove the car in and parked and locked his vehicle. He held onto his key but when he returned, the car was gone. The court found an implied bailment was created because the owner of the car had left it for safe-keeping in the garage, which had limited entrances and required all customers to show a parking ticket to the attendant in order to leave the garage. Rhodes v. Pioneer Parking Lot, Inc., 501 SW 2d 569 (1973) differs in that the court found a bailment relationship did not exist. In that case, the owner parked his car in an open and unattended lot. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff delivered his car into the lot owner’s custody, or that it was reasonable for the owner to believe the owner assumed a bailment obligation, it was improper to infer a bailment relationship. Here, Allen did not drive his wife’s car into an open lot. Allen drove the car into an enclosed parking garage, which had only one exit that was attended by a garage employee and security guards on patrol. These facts demonstrate that a bailment for hire should be implied. Because Hyatt was unable to return the car to the owner, a presumption of negligence is established. Accordingly, the judgment of the courts below are affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Dissent: A bailment relationship is created only where the traditional elements of delivery and control are present. Where a car owner delivers a car to a parking attendant who personally parks the car, the elements of delivery and control are present. Here, the traditional elements are lacking. Allen drove the car into the garage himself, parked it, and retained the key. The Hyatt lacked the ability to access or move the car and, in fact, did not even know who the car belonged to or when it would be picked up. It has not been established that Allen delivered the car to the Hyatt and that the Hyatt accepted control over it. Therefore, a bailment relationship should not be implied. Allen is obligated to affirmatively prove the Hyatt’s negligence.