When you arrive at a hotel with your car, liability turns on who keeps control. In People v. Smith 213 Mich. 351, 182 N.W. 63 (1921), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a garage proprietor entrusted with a vehicle’s care became a bailee, meaning he held lawful possession and could not be convicted of unlawfully taking the vehicle. The case underscores the general rule: valet service creates a bailment and imposes a duty of reasonable care on the operator. If damage or theft occurs, the operator must show it was not negligent.

Self-parking. however, usually creates only a license, not a bailment. Because the guest retains control of the vehicle, liability for theft or damage ordinarily rests on the guest—unless negligence can be shown, such as broken gates. poor lighting, or inadequate security. Most garages and hotels display disclaimers like: “Not responsible for theft or damage.” Courts generally refuse to enforce such disclaimers in bailment situations, because the duty arises by law. In self-parking cases. though. courts are more inclined to honor them. For practitioners. the drafting lesson is clear: make disclaimers prominent when representing operators: challenge them as boilerplate when representing consumers.

The takeaway is straightforward: liability follows control. If the hotel takes possession of the vehicle, responsibility follows. Ifthe guest keeps possession, the risk stays with the guest. Even a routine act like parking a car illustrates important lessons in property law, contract drafting, and risk allocation.

Like what you read? Want to see more SBL YLS content? Subscribe below!

Kayla Toma is an SBM YLS Council Member and an attorney with Wood Kull Herschfus Obee & Kull, PC