MAX GIN and JOHNNIE FONG, as former partners of FONG AND GIN ENTERPRISES, adissolved Hawaii General Partnership, Plaintiffs, v. THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION,DefendantCivil No. 89-0097-SPKUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII741 F. Supp. 1454; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8718May 30, 1990, Decided May 30, 1990, Filed CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, former partners in a general partnership specializing in wholesale jewelry, brought a negligence action against defendant security checkpoint operator to recover the value of jewelry lost during the process of proceeding through a security checkpoint at an international airport. The court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law after hearing the case.OVERVIEW: The partners alleged that a piece of luggage was lost at an airport security checkpoint aftera woman ahead of one of the partners needed four attempts before being cleared, causing the partner to become separated from a bag containing $ 200,000 in jewelry. The jewelry was not recovered. The partners asserted causes of action based on, inter alia, negligent bailment, and sought punitive damages. The court, applying the law of the State of Florida, where the incident occurred, concluded that a bailment was created. Testimony was adduced indicating that due to the placement of the magnetometer, a passenger could not see his bag for some length of time and thus surrendered control of it. The court concluded that the security checkpoint operator failed to exercise the requisite degree of care. In fact, on average bags were lost twice a week. As an independent contractor, the operator was ordered to pay damages in the amount of $ 140,000, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate.OUTCOME: The court found the security checkpoint operator liable for damages in the amount of $ 140,000 to the partners for negligent bailment of the bag containing the partners' jewelry.CORE TERMS: bag, passenger, bailment, magnetometer, checkpoint, machine, baggage, airline, tariff, jewelry, contractor, alarm, hand baggage, airport, degree of care, bailee, ticket, theft, metal, woman, choice of law, claimant, flight, gate, departure, safeguard, security services, present case, period of time, luggageLexisNexis® Headnotes Hide HeadnotesCivil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Erie DoctrineHN1Under the Erie case, a federal district court is to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits. This ruling was extended to apply to the state's choice of law rules.Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Choice of Law > General OverviewHN2According to the Hawaii Supreme Court, a fact specific approach to choice of law should be utilized, one which assesses the interests and policy factors involved with a purpose of arriving ata desirable result in each situation.Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > BailmentsHN3Under Florida law, it has come to be recognized that a bailee who has the sole, actual, and exclusive physical possession of the goods is presumed to be negligent if he cannot explain the loss or disappearance of the goods, and the law imposes on him the burden of showing that he exercised the degree of care required by the nature of the bailment.Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > BailmentsEvidence > Inferences & Presumptions > General OverviewTorts > Negligence > Proof > General OverviewHN4Under Florida law, once a plaintiff has proven the existence of a bailment, and demonstrated the failure of the bailee to return the bailed goods, a presumption of negligence on the part of the bailee arises.COUNSEL: [**1] JOHN RAPP, ESQ., Honolulu, Hawaii.KEVIN S. W. CHEE, ESQ., GREGORY K. MARKHAM, ESQ., Honolulu, Hawaii. JUDGES: Samuel P. King, United States District Judge. OPINION BY: KING OPINION [*1455] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWSAMUEL P. KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEThis matter came on for trial on April 18, 1990. Having considered all the evidence, memoranda and arguments of the parties, the court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.I. Findings of FactPlaintiff, Max Gin ("Gin"), commenced this action seeking to recover the value of certain items of jewelry lost during the process of proceeding through a security checkpoint at Miami International Airport. 1 Gin asserts that the negligence of the defendant, Wackenhut Corporation ("Wackenhut"), which operated the security checkpoint, precipitated the loss of the jewelry.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Leave was given at trial to amend the complaint to include Gin's former business partner, plaintiff Johnnie Fong ("Fong"), so that all parties in interest would be bound by the outcome of this trial.- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - At the time of the [**2] loss, Max Gin was a partner with Johnnie Fong in the firm of Fong & Gin Enterprises, a partnership specializing in wholesale jewelry sales. It was the practice of plaintiffs Gin and Fong to travel, sometimes together and at other times separately, to wholesale jewelry shows throughout the mainland United States where they would ply their wares to jewelry retailers. On the day of the loss, Gin had just completed a show in Miamiand was enroute to New Orleans, where he was to meet his partner and to participate in another show.After the Miami show, Gin was dropped at the airport by several friends. Gin left his checked bags with a skycap at the curbside, and proceeded directly to the departure gate with only acarry-on bag containing his jewelry. Defendant Wackenhut operated a security checkpoint at the entrance to the terminal area containing Gin's departure gate. This checkpoint was typical of those found at airports around the [*1456] country, consisting of an X-ray machine for examining baggage, with an adjacent magnetometer to detect the presence of metal upon persons passing into the departure area.Gin testified that once he approached the checkpoint, he waited to one side until the [**3] line of people waiting for the magnetometer had dwindled. He then placed his bag on the conveyor belt leading into the X-ray machine and stepped up to the magnetometer. Just at that moment a woman wearing a heavy coat abruptly cut in front of Gin and passed through the magnetometer ahead of him. In passing through the magnetometer the woman activated the metal detection alarm. The Wackenhut employee who operated the magnetometer
View Full Document
Unlocking...