Johnson was injured in an automobile accident and was taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital. At the time, he had in the pocket of his jacket a sum of money, some credit cards and a sapphire ring he intended to give to his girlfriend. While Johnson was being treated at the hospital, the money, credit cards and ring disappeared from his jacket. Once he was feeling better, Johnson brought an action against the hospital to recover his loss. What principles of law might Johnson advance in his claim, and what defences might be raised by the hospital? Render a decision.

This case is based on Germina v. Toronto General Hospital (1920), 19 O.W.N. 547 and raises the issue of the nature and formation of the bailment relationship. The patient will attempt to establish that a bailment of his clothing and possessions contained in the clothing arose when he was admitted to the hospital. He will argue that the goods were delivered and the hospital took possession of the goods for the purpose of holding them until he was discharged, at which time they would be returned to him. In essence, it is a gratuitous bailment for the benefit of the bailor, in which case the bailee's obligation is only to take reasonable care of the goods by protecting them from foreseeable risk of harm.
The hospital will raise the defence that no bailment existed on the basis that all three elements of bailment were not present. In particular, the hospital may have been delivered the patient's goods, but possession of them was never officially taken. This was essentially the court's view in this case. In the absence of proof that the goods had, at any time, been taken charge of by anyone connected with the hospital, the plaintiff could not recover.