The following excerpt is from Ouderkirk v. Cent. Nat. Bank, 119 N.Y. 263, 23 N.E. 875 (N.Y. 1890):
it is held in this state that the fact that the bailee's property is also stolen at the same time as that of the bailor does not furnish conclusive evidence of the exercise of ordinary care, (Pattison v. Bank,) yet it is the uniform doctrine of the cases that evidence of a want of such care as the bailee generally bestows upon his own property is strong and persuasive evidence of negligence on his part with respect to the property bailed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.