Ask a Business Lawyer. Get Business Law Questions Answered ASAP.
I saw some early cases that seem to say he's not liable if he exercised orinary care: "A pawnbroker fully overcame any presumption of negligence arising from his failure to deliver a ring in compliance with the pawnor's demand, Seiden v Stern (1916) 95 Misc 255, 159 NYS 88, where the pawnbroker showed that the ring was in a safe stolen by robbers who entered the store and took the safe and other goods at gun point."
Although the robbery occurring after only a year is a wrinkle (which I don't know how to handle), if he exercised "ordinary care", it seems like he's not liable.
If the broker is absolutely liable for any thefts, that means a higher court or a statute overturned Seiden.
Is there a cite? If not, is it known which it was (a higher court or statute)?