Loko v. Pauline & Company (Civil Case No. 234/51) [1952] SLSC 12 – Supreme Court of Sierra Leone (14 March 1952)

Jurisdiction: Sierra Leone
Court: Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
Presiding Judge: Beoku‑Betts J
Date of Judgment: 14 March 1952
Case Number: Civil Case No. 234/51
Legal Area(s): Bailment, Hire of Chattels, Vicarious Liability, Negligence
Tags : Bailment; hire; chattel; negligence; vicarious liability; borrowed servant; Sierra Leone law

Catchwords (Headnote Summary)

Bailment – Hire of chattels – Obligations of hirer – Standard of care – Vicarious liability for crew – Res ipsa loquitur – Loss of hired boats – Duty to return or prove reasonable care:
A hirer of boats was held liable for the loss of two hired vessels where he controlled the crew and failed to exercise reasonable care. The court clarified that a hirer is under a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel, must return it in the same condition or show reasonable care in its keeping, and is liable for the acts of crew under his control. The fact that the chattel was damaged while in the hirer’s possession raises a prima facie presumption of negligence.

Procedural Posture

The plaintiff (Loko) brought an action in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone seeking the return of two boats hired to Pauline & Company (the defendants), or their value, together with arrears of hire and loss of rent. The defendants admitted hiring the boats but alleged that one boat had been defective and removed for repairs and that the other was damaged accidentally after the hire had been terminated. The matter came before Beoku‑Betts J for determination at first instance.

Facts of the Case

Hiring of boats: In early 1951 the plaintiff hired two boats to the defendant company at £5 per month each. The boats were to be used in the defendants’ business. Although two crew members for each boat were initially supplied by the plaintiff, the defendants assumed full control and management of both vessels. They paid the crew’s wages for convenience but exercised all operational control over the boats.
Loss of the first boat: One of the boats went missing while under the defendants’ control. The defendants suggested that the boat leaked from the beginning and was taken away by the plaintiff’s servants for repair, but the court found this version unbelievable. It held that if the boat had been leaking the defendants would not have accepted it or continued paying rent. Moreover, had the boat been taken away for repairs, the defendants—being the hirers—should have ensured its return.
Damage to the second boat: The defendants terminated the hire of the second boat on 9 April 1951 and requested the plaintiff to remove it. Before it was removed, the boat was damaged by stones falling from a crane operated by employees of the defendants. The boat was never returned to the plaintiff, and the defendants could not explain what happened to it after the damage.
Claim and defence: The plaintiff sought £85 as the value of the boats (accounting for wear and tear) and claimed arrears of rent for March and April 1951 and loss of rent for May and June. The defendants contended that one boat had been taken away by the plaintiff for repairs and never returned, that the remaining boat was damaged accidentally after the termination of the hire, and that they had overpaid the plaintiff.

Issues for Determination

Standard of care owed by a hirer of chattels: What degree of care is owed by the hirer of a chattel for reward? Does the hirer’s duty extend to returning the chattel in the same condition or proving reasonable care?
Responsibility for crew and vicarious liability: Where the owner supplies some crew members but the hirer pays their wages and controls their actions, is the hirer liable for the negligence of those crew members?
Presumption of negligence: Does the fact that a chattel is lost or damaged while in the hirer’s possession raise a presumption of negligence, requiring the hirer to explain the loss?
Effect of termination notice: If a hirer terminates the hire agreement and requires the owner to remove the chattel, does liability for loss or damage cease immediately?
Measure of damages: How should the court assess damages for the loss of hired chattels and arrears of rent?

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

The plaintiff argued that both boats were hired for reward and that the defendants controlled the boats and crew. Under the law of bailment, the hirer is bound to exercise reasonable care and must return the chattel or compensate its value if lost.
The plaintiff disputed the defendants’ assertion that one boat was unseaworthy or was taken away for repairs. He contended that the defendants continued to pay rent for both boats until after the loss, indicating their acceptance of the boats’ condition.
The plaintiff maintained that the second boat was damaged due to the defendants’ negligence. Since the boat was lost while under their control, they bore the burden of explaining the loss.
The plaintiff claimed damages of £85 for the two boats and sought arrears of rent for March and April 1951 and loss of rent for May and June.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants admitted hiring the boats but asserted that one boat was in bad condition when delivered and that it was removed by the plaintiff’s servants for repairs and never returned.
They argued that they had overpaid the plaintiff for rent, as they were paying for two boats while only using one.
Regarding the second boat, the defendants contended that they had terminated the hire on 9 April 1951, requested the plaintiff to remove it, and therefore were not responsible for damage occurring thereafter. They claimed the damage was an unavoidable accident.

Authorities Cited

Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 92 ER 107: The court referred to this leading case on bailment, which holds that a bailee (or hirer) must exercise due care and is liable for loss caused by negligence. A gratuitous bailee is not liable for inevitable accidents, but is liable where damage results from negligencefpbl.com.au.
Bull & Co. v. West African Shipping Agency & Lighterage Co. [1927] AC 686: The court relied on this Privy Council decision involving a hired lighter manned by servants of the owner but under the control of the hirer. It held that the hirer was liable for negligence causing the loss of the lighter because the hirer exercised control over the servants.
Dollar v. Greenfield (1905): Applied for the principle that a hirer must restore the chattel in the same condition or show reasonable care.
Donovan v. Laing, Wharton & Down Construction Syndicate Ltd [1893] 1 QB 629: Discussed regarding vicarious liability; if an owner lends a servant with a chattel but surrenders control over the servant, the borrower (hirer) becomes liable for the servant’s negligence.
Fawkes v. Poulson & Son (1892) 8 TLR 725: Distinguished; that case treated damage caused by a falling stone as an unavoidable accident. Here, the court found negligence because the defendants placed the boat where stones were being discharged from a crane.
Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd ed.) vol. 1 at 759: Quoted for the proposition that in a hire for reward the hirer is obliged to take reasonable care and is not liable for loss unless due to the hirer’s or his servants’ negligence.

Decision / Judgment

Standard of care and presumption of negligence

Beoku‑Betts J held that where goods are hired for reward, the hirer owes a duty of reasonable care and is liable for loss or damage caused by negligence. The court adopted the common‑law rule that if a chattel is injured while in the hirer’s possession, a prima facie presumption of negligence arises, and the hirer must explain the loss. The leading case of Coggs v. Bernard supports this duty of carefpbl.com.au.

Responsibility for crew – borrowed servant rule

The court found that, although the plaintiff supplied some crew members, the defendants paid their wages and controlled their movements; thus the crew were effectively the defendants’ servants. Citing Donovan v. Laing, Wharton & Down, the court ruled that where an owner lends a chattel with a servant but the hirer exercises control, liability shifts to the hirer. The defendants therefore were responsible for the negligence of the crew and could not escape liability by arguing that the plaintiff supplied some crew members.

Findings of fact

Beoku‑Betts J rejected the defendants’ assertion that the first boat was defective or taken away by the plaintiff’s servants. He found that the defendants accepted the boat and paid rent for it, indicating their satisfaction with its condition. The court emphasised that had the boat leaked, the defendants would not have continued paying rent. He further held that if anyone removed the boat for repairs, the defendants, being in charge, should have traced its whereabouts and ensured its return.

Regarding the second boat, the court found that before the plaintiff could remove it, the boat was damaged by stones falling from a crane operated by the defendants’ employees. The defendants had placed the boat in a dangerous area and failed to explain how it disappeared after being damaged.

Liability and damages

Given the defendants’ control over both boats and their failure to return them, the court concluded that the defendants were negligent and liable for the loss of both boats. Beoku‑Betts J assessed the value of the first boat at £50 and the second at £35 (reflecting wear and tear), awarding £85 in total damages. He declined to award arrears of rent because the evidence did not substantiate the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent. The plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff. The court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for £85 and costs.

Key Quotations from Judgment

On the duty of care owed by a hirer:

“The contract was one of hire for reward, and the defendants as hirers are under an obligation to take reasonable care only of the goods, and they would not be liable for loss or injury unless caused by their negligence or that of their servants.” (paraphrasing the court’s reasoning as summarised).

On the prima facie presumption of negligence:

“The fact that the chattel is injured whilst in the hirer’s possession raises a prima facie presumption against the hirer… In a contract of hiring there is an obligation upon the hirer to restore the chattel at the end of the bailment in as good condition as he received it or to show that he exercised reasonable care in the keeping of the chattel.”

On vicarious liability for crew under the hirer’s control:

“A hirer is always liable for the acts of his employees in the course of their employment; and this liability extends to the acts of persons not employed by the owner but supplied to operate the hired chattel if they are under the hirer’s control, and especially if they are paid by the hirer.”

Ratio Decidendi

A hirer’s duty of care: In a contract of hire for reward, the hirer must exercise reasonable care over the chattel and is liable for loss or damage caused by his negligence or that of those under his control.
Presumption of negligence: Where a chattel is lost or damaged while in the hirer’s possession, the law presumes negligence; the hirer must either return the chattel in good condition or prove that reasonable care was taken.
Vicarious liability (borrowed servant doctrine): When the owner supplies crew but the hirer pays and controls them, the hirer becomes the employer for liability purposes and is responsible for their negligence.

Obiter Dictum

Beoku‑Betts J observed that the defendants’ claim of overpayment of rent lacked evidential support; the person responsible for making payments was not called, and documents produced by the defendants actually indicated payments for both boats. This observation, though not essential to the decision on liability, underscores the court’s emphasis on evidential proof when alleging overpayment.

Final Orders / Reliefs Granted

Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Damages: £85 (comprising £50 for the first boat and £35 for the second).
No award of arrears or loss of rent.
Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Commentary / Practice Note

Significance in Sierra Leonean law

This decision clarifies the obligations of hirers of chattels under Sierra Leonean law. It aligns with English common law by affirming that a hirer for reward must exercise reasonable care and faces a rebuttable presumption of negligence if the chattel is lost or damaged. The case emphasises that merely terminating the hire does not relieve the hirer of responsibility until the chattel is actually returned.

Borrowed servant doctrine and control

The ruling highlights that control is decisive in determining liability for acts of crew. The defendants paid the crew and directed their work; therefore, they were treated as the crew’s employers and were vicariously liable for their negligence. This reflects the broader borrowed servant rule, under which liability shifts to a temporary employer who directs and controls a borrowed workerinvestopedia.com. In the Investopedia explanation of the rule, the temporary employer is responsible for the worker’s actions because it directs the work and benefits from itinvestopedia.com. The case thus serves as an early example of applying the borrowed servant doctrine in Sierra Leone.

Comparison with Coggs v. Bernard

The court drew on Coggs v. Bernard, where the English court held that even a gratuitous bailee must exercise due care and is liable for negligencefpbl.com.au. While Coggs involved a gratuitous bailment, Loko v. Pauline concerned a hire for reward, imposing a higher duty. Both cases, however, emphasise that the bailee/hirer must return the chattel or prove reasonable care.

Lessons for businesses and practitioners

Documenting control and responsibility: Businesses hiring equipment should clearly document who pays and controls the operators. As the borrowed servant rule shows, paying wages and directing the work shifts liability to the hirerinvestopedia.com.
Avoiding informal termination: Terminating a hire agreement does not absolve the hirer until the property is safely returned. A hirer should ensure the owner collects the chattel promptly or maintains custody and care until collection.
Risk management: Operators should avoid placing hired equipment in hazardous locations. In this case, the defendants’ placement of the boat where stones were discharged by a crane constituted negligence.

Sample Legal Questions (Objective Test)

In Loko v. Pauline & Co., what legal duty does a hirer of goods for reward owe to the owner?
A. To insure the goods at market value.
B. To take reasonable care of the goods and return them in the same condition or show that reasonable care was exercised.
C. To compensate the owner for all consequential losses regardless of fault.
D. To delegate the duty of care to the supplied crew.
Which case did the court in Loko v. Pauline & Co. cite as the leading authority on the responsibilities of a hirer regarding the condition of a chattel upon return?
A. Mersey Docks v. Coggins & Griffiths.
B. Coggs v. Bernard.
C. Donoghue v. Stevenson.
D. Rylands v. Fletcher.
In Loko v. Pauline & Co., why was the defendant company held liable for the negligence of the crew operating the hired boats?
A. Because the crew were jointly employed by the plaintiff and defendant.
B. Because the defendants paid and controlled the crew, making them the crew’s employers under the borrowed servant doctrine.
C. Because the plaintiff expressly indemnified the defendants for any negligence.
D. Because the defendants had terminated the hire prior to the incident.
What presumption arises when a chattel is lost or damaged while in the hirer’s possession?
A. A presumption that the owner is at fault.
B. A presumption that the chattel was defective.
C. A presumption of negligence against the hirer.
D. No presumption; the burden remains on the owner.
In assessing damages for the loss of the boats, what amount did the court award to the plaintiff in Loko v. Pauline & Co.?
A. £139
B. £85
C. £105 15s.0d
D. £20
According to the borrowed servant rule as explained in the Investopedia article, when does liability shift to the temporary employer?
A. When the regular employer pays the worker’s wages.
B. When the temporary employer exercises control over the worker and directs the work.
C. Only when the temporary employer monitors the worker in person.
D. Only when the temporary employer signs a written contract with the worker.
Which of the following statements reflects an obiter dictum in Loko v. Pauline & Co.?
A. The court found that payment for two boats implied the defendants acknowledged both boats were on hire.
B. The court rejected the defendants’ story that one boat was defective.
C. The court stated that the defendants’ allegation of overpayment lacked evidential support.
D. The court held that a hirer owes reasonable care and is liable for loss caused by negligence.
Which authority did the court distinguish on the basis that a falling stone was treated as an unavoidable accident?
A. Donovan v. Laing, Wharton & Down.
B. Dollar v. Greenfield.
C. Fawkes v. Poulson & Son.
D. Bull & Co. v. West African Shipping Agency.
Under the decision in Loko v. Pauline & Co., what effect does the termination of a hire agreement have on the hirer’s responsibility for the chattel?
A. The hirer’s responsibility ends immediately upon giving notice.
B. The hirer remains responsible until the owner retakes possession or the chattel is safely returned.
C. The hirer’s responsibility ends only if the owner supplies a replacement.
D. The hirer is never responsible after termination.
Which principle from Coggs v. Bernard did the court apply in Loko v. Pauline & Co.?
A. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to gratuitous bailments.
B. A gratuitous bailee is liable only for fraud.
C. A bailee must exercise due care and is liable for loss caused by negligence.
D. A bailee may unilaterally reduce the agreed hire fee.

Answers to Objective Questions

Essay Questions and Model Answers

Question 1. Discuss the legal principles governing a hirer’s duty of care over hired chattels for reward and explain how the court applied those principles in Loko v. Pauline & Co.

Answer:
A hirer of a chattel for reward enters into a contract of bailment under which the hirer must take reasonable care of the chattel and is liable for loss or damage caused by negligence. The standard of care is that of a prudent owner; the hirer must return the chattel in the same condition or show that reasonable care was taken. This principle is derived from English common law, particularly Coggs v. Bernard (1703), which established that even a gratuitous bailee must exercise due carefpbl.com.au. In a hire for reward, the duty is even more stringent. If the chattel is lost or damaged while in the hirer’s possession, a prima facie presumption of negligence arises, and the hirer bears the burden of proving that the loss was not due to negligence.

In Loko v. Pauline & Co., Beoku‑Betts J held that the defendants, as hirers of the boats, owed a duty of reasonable care and were obliged to return the boats in the same condition or show that they exercised reasonable care. Both boats were lost or damaged while under the defendants’ control. The court found that the defendants placed the second boat in a dangerous location where it was struck by stones from a crane, and they failed to account for the first boat’s disappearance. Because the defendants could not demonstrate that they took reasonable care, they were deemed negligent and were liable for the loss. The judgment illustrates the application of the traditional bailment principles to modern commercial hire agreements.

Question 2. Analyse the borrowed servant doctrine and evaluate how it influenced the court’s decision in Loko v. Pauline & Co. Cite relevant authorities.

Answer:
The borrowed servant doctrine determines which employer is vicariously liable for a servant’s negligence when the servant is lent to another party. The doctrine holds that liability shifts to the temporary employer when that employer exercises control over the servant’s work, even if the servant remains the general employee of the original employer. The key question is who has the right to control the servant’s actions.

In Donovan v. Laing, Wharton & Down Construction Syndicate Ltd (1893) 1 QB 629, the English Court of Appeal held that where a crane and its operator were lent to another firm and the borrower directed the operator’s work, the borrower—rather than the general employer—was liable for the operator’s negligence. This authority underpins the borrowed servant doctrine. A modern explanation of the rule, as summarised in Investopedia, notes that the rule shifts liability to the temporary employer who directs the work and benefits from itinvestopedia.com.

In Loko v. Pauline & Co., the plaintiff supplied some crew members, but the defendants paid their wages and controlled their movements. The court held that the crew were effectively under the defendants’ control and that the defendants therefore bore vicarious liability for the crew’s negligence. The court cited Donovan v. Laing and other authorities to support this conclusion. By emphasising control and payment of wages, the court applied the borrowed servant doctrine to a bailment context. The decision demonstrates that where an owner supplies personnel with a chattel but does not retain control, the hirer becomes the employer for liability purposes.

Question 3. Explain the significance of the presumption of negligence when a chattel is damaged while in the hirer’s possession. How did the court in Loko v. Pauline & Co. deal with this presumption?

Answer:
In bailment law, when a chattel is injured or lost while in the possession of the bailee or hirer, a presumption of negligence arises against the bailee. This doctrine reflects the fact that the bailee has exclusive control of the chattel and is in the best position to explain any loss. The presumption is not conclusive; the bailee may rebut it by showing that the loss occurred despite the exercise of reasonable care. This principle is derived from cases such as Coggs v. Bernard and subsequent decisions, and forms part of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the context of bailment.

In Loko v. Pauline & Co., the court applied this presumption. Both boats were lost or damaged while under the defendants’ control. The defendants attempted to suggest that one boat was defective and that the other was damaged accidentally after the hire ended. However, they produced no credible evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence. Beoku‑Betts J held that because the boats were lost while in the defendants’ possession and the defendants could not explain the loss or prove reasonable care, the presumption of negligence prevailed. Consequently, the defendants were held liable.

Question 4. Critically assess the court’s refusal to award arrears of rent and loss of rent despite finding the defendants negligent. Under what circumstances might such an award be justified?

Answer:
Beoku‑Betts J declined to award arrears of rent or loss of rent, noting that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid rent. The plaintiff’s amended particulars sought arrears from March 16 to April 30 1951 and loss of rent for May and June. However, the court observed that the defendants had continued paying rent for both boats until the boats were lost, and there was no reliable evidence that rent was actually owing beyond that. The judge also rejected the defendants’ assertion of overpayment.

An award of arrears of rent or loss of rent would be justified if the hirer had wrongfully withheld rent payments while still benefiting from the chattel, or if the hirer’s negligence deprived the owner of further income from the chattel. For example, had the defendants withheld payments while continuing to use the boats, or had the plaintiff proved that he could have hired out the boats to another party but for the defendants’ negligence, the court might have awarded damages for loss of rent. In this case, however, the evidence indicated that rent had been paid up to the date of the loss, so damages were confined to the value of the lost boats.

Question 5. From a policy perspective, how does Loko v. Pauline & Co. contribute to the development of Sierra Leonean commercial law, and what practical lessons can businesses draw from the decision?

Answer:
Loko v. Pauline & Co. reinforces the application of English common‑law principles of bailment and vicarious liability within Sierra Leonean law. By applying doctrines such as the borrowed servant rule and the presumption of negligence, the case integrates established common‑law concepts into local jurisprudence. This contributes to the coherence of commercial law in Sierra Leone by providing predictable standards for parties engaged in the hiring of goods and equipment.

Practically, the decision teaches businesses several lessons:

Control determines liability: Businesses that hire equipment with operators must recognise that paying and controlling the operators makes them liable for the operators’ negligence. Proper supervision and training are essential.
Document termination and return: Termination notices should be accompanied by clear arrangements for the return of the hired property. Simply asking the owner to remove the chattel does not discharge the hirer’s responsibility.
Risk management: Placing hired equipment in hazardous environments (e.g., under a working crane) may constitute negligence. Businesses should conduct risk assessments and avoid foreseeable dangers.
Clear records: Allegations of overpayment or unpaid rent must be supported by credible evidence. Businesses should maintain accurate payment records to avoid disputes.

By emphasising these practical points, the case serves as both a doctrinal authority and a cautionary tale for parties engaged in commercial hire agreements.

Download the full case below…

Loko v Pauline v Company (CIVIL CASE 234 of 1951) 1952 SLSC 12 (14 March 1952)Download

Cart