Where the bailment is for the bailor's sole benefit, the bailee is only called upon to exercise slight care, and is only answerable for gross negligence.1

Where the property is stolen, it has been held that the bailee is not liable unless the loss is the result of gross negligence on his part.2 But it was held in State vs. Meagher,3 that the fact of theft was presumptive evidence of carelessness or fraud under the civil law, and that a bailee having reason to believe that there is danger of robbery who takes no precautions against it, is negligent.4 And where a bailee used the property and substituted other property of a similar kind and value, which was stolen, he was held liable for the loss to the bailor.5

Mere knowledge by the bailor of the mode in which a bailee cares for property intrusted to him will not absolve the latter from liability for want of due care in keeping the property. Such knowledge, accompanied by evidence of long acquiescence without objection, might show an agreement as to the nature and degree of care which the bailee was to use, but beyond this it would not be safe to go.6

1 Chase vs. Maberry, 3 Harr. (Del.), 266; Dunn vs. Kyle, 14 Bush. (Ky.), 134; Schermer vs. New-rath, 54 Md., 491.

2 Whitney vs. Lee, 8 Metc. (Mass.), 91; Tancil vs. Seaton, 28 Gratt. (Va.), 601, 26 Am. Rep., 380. But see Huxley vs. Hartzell, 44 Mo., 370, holding that the mere fact that an article was stolen without the knowledge of the bailee, is not an excuse, but that it must appear that it was lost without his negligence or fault.

3 44 Mo., 356; 100 Am. Dec, 298.

4 Henkins vs. Motlow, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 248; 60 Am. Dec, 154.

5 Anderson vs. Foresman, Wright (Ohio), 598.

In Louisiana, under the code, the bailee must take the same care of the subject-matter of the bailment as he uses with respect to his own property.7 Proof that the bailee so dealt with the property raises a presumption of adequate diligence.

Bailments for the bailor's sole benefit include the depositum and the mandatum.