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)?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).