Duty of Reasonable Care

Meaning
The Principle of Duty of Reason able Care under the law of contracts with
reference to section 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act essentially comes under the
purview of Duties of Bailee with regards to goods bailed to him. It means that in all cases
where goods are bailed to a bailee, the bailee is bound to take care of the goods assigned to
him as any man of ordinary prudence would do of his own goods. This is section is enforced
to so that there is a duty of care performed by the bailee.
Definition
Duty of reasonable care is defined under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act it is defined
as In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to
him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances take, of his own
goods of the same bulk, quality and value of the goods bailed.
Section 152 of the Indian Contract states circumstances where the bailee is not liable for the
loss suffered.
Section 152 states that The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible
for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care
of it described in section 151.
Applicability of Duty of Reasonable care in case of bailees
In India the section regarding Reasonable Duty of Care prescribes a uniform standard of care
in all cases of bailment, which means as described in section 151 the bailee has to take
reasonable care of goods bailed to him, that is he has to take care of the goods as he would of
his own goods of the same value and quantity. Indian Law does not make a distinction
between a bailee for reward or a gratuitous bailee, as is done under English law, where a
gratuitous bailee is responsible for loss only if he is guilty of Gross negligence.
Circumstances of liability of the Bailee
In the case of Gopal Singh v Punjab National Bank, where the bank which had offices in
Pakistan had to flee during the mass exodus during partition was not held liable to the goods
bailed to it in Pakistan .

Loss by theft- The bailee is liable for loss of goods of the bailor if the goods have been stolen
under the bailees care and if it is found that the bailee had not taken reasonable care for the
securing of goods. Hotel Keepers were held liable where the plaintiff was away while staying
at their hotel, his goods were stolen from his room, and the room to his knowledge was in an
insecure condition, Joan& Son v A. Cameron ILR (1922) 44 All 735.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is on the bailee to show that he had taken reasonable care and if he can
prove this he will not be liable. If the bailee places before the court evidence to show that he
had taken reasonable care to avoid damage which was reasonably foreseeable or had taken all
reasonable precautions to obviate risks which were reasonably apprehended, he would be
absolved of liability. It was held that the Railway company was liable for the plaintiffs goods
which was being carried by a barge sank, and the railway company was not able to explain
how it happened in the case of Union of India v Sugauli Sugar Works. In Bullen v Swan
Electric Graving Co, it was held that bailee was not liable for certain engraving plates that
were stolen as the bailee was able to prove that it was kept in a proper place under the care of
proper persons and in a proper arrangement.
Loss due to act of bailees servant
If the loss of goods is due to the act of servant of the bailee, the bailee would be liable for the
loss if the act is done within the scope of employment. The principle here is same as under
the principle of vicarious liability as under tort law.
Bailees own goods lost with those of bailor
Where the bailees own goods are lost along with the goods of the bailor, this would not
absolve the bailee of the liability as the reason that the bailee was taking care of his own
goods as of the bailee claiming reasonable care would not hold water as the bailees
negligence to his own goods is no justification for the negligence towards the goods of others.
Thus it has to be determined whether the bailee had taken reasonable care of the goods bailed
to him. It was so held in the case of Sheills v Blackburne.
Involuntary Bailee
Unde English Law a person who comes into possession of goods without his consent is liable
for the goods as a bailee, earlier though in cases the defendant who is an involuntary bailee is

not held liable, in later cases such as Newman v Bourne & Hollingsworth , the plaintiff who
forgot a diamond brooch at a shop where she went to buy a coat, was lost the defendant was
held liable.
Duties of Bailee in terms of Transportation Contracts
The section where duties of bailees is defined, is used extensively under transportation
contracts. Here the transporter or the carrier is liable for the goods assigned to him by the
bailor as he would be of his own goods. Although the degree of liability varies with the mode
of transport and circumstances. Bailment of goods to the railways comes under special
contracts as it comes under the purview of Railways Act 1989.