Unpublished Disposition, 911 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^*** 

William Tufford appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his section 1983 claim. Tufford alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when Larry Layman, a patrol officer for the Fairbanks City Police Department, impounded Tufford's vehicle because it was unregistered, and had it towed by Happy Hooker Towing. Tufford further claims that over four pounds of gold that had been hidden in the car were stolen after the vehicle was impounded. The district court found no triable issues and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. We affirm.

Tufford's section 1983 claim depends upon the existence of a violation of federal law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Tufford has shown no such violation. Officer Layman observed an unlicensed, unregistered vehicle operating on a public road in violation of Alaska law. Alaska Statute Sec. 28.10.461. Layman ordered the car impounded to prevent a continuing violation of that statute. The Alaska statute and its enforcement in this case were reasonable exercises of the police power. Tufford has presented no genuine issues for trial on this claim.

Tufford also raises a pendent state claim against the Happy Hooker Towing company for negligent bailment of his vehicle, allegedly resulting in the loss of over four pounds of gold. When his vehicle was impounded, Tufford became an involuntary bailor. Tufford did not inform Officer Layman, Happy Hooker Towing, or anyone else of the gold allegedly hidden in the car. Happy Hooker Towing had no way of knowing of this hidden liability. As a bailee Happy Hooker did not become an insurer of the vehicle and its contents. A bailee is required only to "exercise the degree of care of a reasonably careful owner." Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Foss Launch & Tug Co., 560 P.2d 393, 395 (Alaska 1977). Happy Hooker took reasonable care of the bailed automobile, given the information provided about its contents. The automobile was placed in a secure lot and there is no sign that its contents, with the possible exception of the gold, were disturbed. Happy Hooker could not be required to do more without any knowledge of the presence of the gold. See Annotation, Liability of Owner of Parking Lot for Loss, 78 A.L.R.3d 1057, 1069 ("Once the bailment of a vehicle has been established, it is incumbent upon the automobile owner in order to recover for the theft of or damage to the contents of the bailed motor vehicle ... to establish that the ... operator had notice or knowledge of the presence of the contents in the vehicle."); see also Lynden Transport, Inc. v. Haragan, 623 P.2d 789 (Alaska 1981) (bailor has a duty to inform bailee of any known dangers of bailed property). Tufford has presented no triable issue on this claim.

AFFIRMED.