James D. Branch, II v. Elizabeth Marlene Branch, 12-15-00120-CV

Plaintiff James D. Branch, II stored a safe on property owned by defendant Elizabeth Marlene Branch after a building fire; Branch (plaintiff) claims he relied on defendant's assurance the safe would be secure.
Defendant allowed two unknown men to remove the safe after being told the men had been given the safe by plaintiff.
Plaintiff discovered the safe missing, contacted law enforcement, and confronted defendant; defendant acknowledged she should have notified plaintiff and had a duty to do so.
The case proceeded as a bench trial in the Anderson County Court at Law on November 20, 2014; plaintiff appealed after the trial court denied damages for conversion.
Appellant argues defendant became a bailee when she accepted custody of the safe and therefore owed a duty to reasonably secure it; appellant seeks reversal and a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant owed a duty as bailee and is liable for conversion of the safe	Branch: defendant accepted and stored plaintiff's property and thus became a bailee with a duty to keep it reasonably secure; failing to notify or secure the safe supports conversion damages	Branch (defendant): she lacked knowledge of the safe's contents or value and therefore owed no special duty; she received no value from giving the safe away so conversion is not established	Trial court denied plaintiff's requested damages (appellant seeks reversal; brief contends duty exists regardless of knowledge)

Mosley v. Page, 822 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1990) (bailee duty not dependent on knowledge or intent)
Waisath v. Locks' Stores, Inc., 474 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1971) (conversion liability not limited to situations where bailee obtains value)
Ligon v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 428 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. Civ. App. — Dallas 1978) (conversion principles and bailee liability discussed)