State v. $281,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 312 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2010); Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1975); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003(a), 16.004, 38.001(b)(8)
Bailment in Texas — you left it with them, and the burden shifts to them
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
A bailment is what happens whenever you hand your property to someone for a purpose and expect it back — the mechanic, the valet, the dry cleaner, the boarding kennel, the warehouse, the repair shop.
The reason the relationship has its own name is the burden-shifting rule. Once the bailor proves delivery in good condition and return in damaged condition or no return at all, a presumption of negligence arises against the bailee, and the bailee has to explain what happened.
That rule exists because the bailee is the only one who knows.
What the claim is
You gave your property to someone for a specific purpose. It came back broken, or it did not come back.
Where the right comes from
Common law. Texas treats a bailment as contractual in origin and permits recovery in contract, in negligence, or in conversion depending on the facts.
What a plaintiff has to prove
The elements of the bailment itself, from State v. $281,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 312 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2010):
- Delivery of personal property from the bailor to the bailee for a specific purpose;
- Acceptance of delivery by the bailee;
- An express or implied contract that the purpose will be carried out; and
- An agreement that the property will be returned or otherwise dealt with according to its purpose.
Then the breach: the property was not returned, or was returned damaged.
No writing is required. Handing over the keys creates the relationship.
The presumption
On proof that the property was delivered in good condition and returned damaged or not returned, the law raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence and the bailor has made a prima facie case — Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1975); Trammell v. Whitlock, 242 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1951).
What shifts is the burden of production. The bailee must come forward with evidence of a cause that does not involve its negligence — a theft despite reasonable security, a fire, a flood, an act of a third party.
What does not shift is the burden of persuasion, which stays with the bailor. If the bailee produces a non-negligent explanation, the presumption disappears and the case is tried on the evidence.
The practical effect is decisive anyway. A shop that says only "we don't know what happened" has not rebutted anything, and a plaintiff who could never prove how the damage occurred wins.
The three kinds, and the standard of care
For the sole benefit of the bailor — you asked a neighbour to store something as a favour. The bailee owes only slight care and answers for gross negligence.
For mutual benefit — you paid for storage, repair, cleaning or parking. The bailee owes ordinary care, and this covers nearly every commercial case.
For the sole benefit of the bailee — you lent something and got nothing for it. The bailee owes a high degree of care and answers for slight negligence.
How long you have to file
The theory decides the deadline.
Four years under CPRC § 16.004 or the residual period in CPRC § 16.051, on a contract theory — breach of the agreement to return.
Two years under CPRC § 16.003(a), on a tort theory. Section 16.003(a) covers "conversion of personal property, taking or detaining the personal property of another," and property damage.
A bailor with a stale claim should plead the contract. A bailor with a defendant who sold the goods should plead conversion and take the tort period, because conversion opens exemplary damages that contract does not.
What has to happen before you file
Demand. A bailee is not in breach until the property is demanded and not returned, on a bailment with no fixed term. The demand also fixes accrual.
Presentment, if attorney's fees are wanted under CPRC § 38.002 — present the claim and wait 30 days.
What the claim pays
The market value of the property at the time and place of the loss, where it was not returned or was destroyed.
The cost of repair, plus any loss of value that remains after repair, where it was returned damaged.
Loss of use, where the property was a vehicle or equipment and substitute use had to be hired.
Attorney's fees on the contract theory, under CPRC § 38.001(b)(8), which reaches an oral or written contract. No fees on the tort theory — which is a second reason the pleading choice matters.
Exemplary damages on a conversion theory with clear and convincing proof of malice under CPRC § 41.003.
No sentimental value, as a rule. Texas measures ordinary personal property by market value, with a narrow allowance for property that has no market value at all, such as family photographs, where actual value to the owner may be considered.
Who can be sued
The bailee — the business or person who accepted the property.
The employer, where an employee caused the loss within the course and scope of employment.
A third party who took the property, in conversion. The bailee's failure to protect it does not insulate the person who has it.
Disclaimers on the claim ticket
"Not responsible for loss or damage" on a parking stub or a repair ticket is the standard defence, and it works less often than it is invoked.
A limitation of liability has to be communicated and agreed to, not printed on the back of something handed over after the transaction. A sign the customer never read, or a ticket the customer took as a receipt rather than as a contract, may never have entered the bargain.
Where it was agreed to, courts read it narrowly and construe it against the drafter, and a clause purporting to excuse the bailee's own negligence must say so conspicuously. Attempts to disclaim liability for gross negligence or intentional conduct fail.
Common defenses
- Loss without negligence — theft despite reasonable security, fire, a natural event — which rebuts the presumption.
- The property was returned as agreed.
- No bailment, only a lease of space. This is the parking-lot defence: an unattended lot where the customer keeps the keys is a licence to park, not a delivery of the car.
- A valid limitation of liability.
- Comparative responsibility, on a tort theory.
- Limitations — and which period applies depends on the theory pleaded.
What people get wrong
"We don't know what happened" is not a defence. It is the situation the presumption was designed for.
A sign does not automatically limit liability. The limitation has to be part of the agreement.
Keeping your keys usually means no bailment. Self-park lots generally create no delivery of possession, and the operator owes only premises-liability duties.
The deadline depends on what you plead. Four years in contract, two in tort, off identical facts.
Fees follow the contract theory only. Section 38.001 reaches the contract claim; conversion pays no fees.
Where it came from
Bailment is one of the oldest categories in the common law, and it predates the modern division between contract and tort — which is why it still sits in both. The English courts classified bailments by who benefited and set a different standard of care for each, and Texas took that scheme whole.
The burden-shifting rule came from the same era and the same practical insight: when goods go into someone else's exclusive control and come out damaged, the person who had control is the only one with access to the explanation. Requiring the owner to prove what happened inside the warehouse would have made the claim impossible, so the law made the warehouse speak first.
Nothing about that logic has aged. It applies identically to a data centre, a car park and a grain elevator.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue for damaged or lost property left with a business?
Four years on a contract theory, two years on a tort or conversion theory. Plead the contract if the claim is old.
Do I have to prove how the damage happened?
No. Proof that you delivered the property in good condition and it came back damaged or not at all raises a presumption of negligence, and the bailee must explain.
Does a "not responsible for loss" sign protect the business?
Not automatically. A limitation must be communicated and agreed to, is construed against the business, and cannot excuse gross negligence or intentional conduct.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
Yes on a contract theory under § 38.001(b)(8), after presenting the claim and waiting 30 days. Not on a conversion or negligence theory.
Is a parking garage responsible for my car?
If an attendant took the keys, that is a bailment. If you parked and kept the keys, usually not.
Can I recover sentimental value?
Generally no. Texas measures ordinary property by market value, with a narrow exception for property that has no market value.