Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Landlord's responsibility for missing UPS package

I don't know of any case law covering these specific facts, but everyday principles of law can be applied. When someone signs for your package and accepts delivery, they become a voluntary bailee (or depositary, as California law seems to prefer). See Civil Code section 1814. The depositary must deliver the thing to the person for whose benefit it was deposited on demand. CC 1822. If no demand is made, there is no duty to deliver. CC 1823. The place of delivery can be the depositary's residence or place of business. CC 1824.

A depositary cannot open a sealed package, CC 1835, and is obliged to use at least 'slight care' for the preservation of the thing deposited if he is a 'gratuitous depositary,' CC 1846(a). A depositary is 'gratuitous' if he receives no consideration for the deposit, i.e. is not a paid warehouseman, for-hire repairman, etc. If the depositary is NOT gratuitous, he is held to a higher degree of care. For example, you expect more care of the watch repairman to whom you entrust your watch for repair than you do from the neighbor who receives your UPS packages.

I would say the landlord's employee is probably not a gratuitous depositary IF receiving packages is part of the duties for which he/she is paid.

Therefore, failure to provide the requisite care is a breach of duty to you, and you can sue for the consequences of that breach.

In addition to the liability of the person who actually received the package and lost it, the employer (landlord) has 'vicarious liability' under the master-servant liability theory if the employee, in receiving the package, was acting within the course and scope of his/her duties, and possibly on other theories as well.

If you have adequate proof that the depositary failed to use adequate care and there are no other facts that would paint a different picture if known, you should prevail if you go to court.