itself. “In the care of property, the bailee’s contractual obligation is to exercise due care for the safekeeping of the bailed property----” Barnett, 162 Conn, at 63, 291 A.2d 234 (1971). As a bailee, BOA’s duty was to return the property undamaged to the bailor. See id.; H.J. Kelly & Assocs. v. City of Meriden, No. CV030285781, 2008 WL 496688, at *10 (Conn.Super.Ct. Jan. 17, 2008). The fulfillment of the bailor’s duty generally requires it to inspect the premises to ensure they are appropriate for storing the bailed items, see 8A Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § § 119, 127; and storing bailed items in a location that exposes them to a risk that was not known to the bailee can be a violation of that duty, see, e.g., Miller v. Greyvan Lines, Inc., 284 A.D. 133, 130 N.Y.S.2d 378, 381 (1954) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 308 N.Y. 853, 126 N.E.2d 183 (1955). In
holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense holding that trial counsels performance in failing to object move to strike or request an admonishment of the jury with respect to the defendants criminal history was deficient and that it could not be said that the references to the defendants criminal history did not impact the jurys decision where the evidence was not overwhelming and reversing for a new trial holding that the bailor had not waived any breach of a bailment contract when the defendant moved the bailed items from a location the defendant said was fireproof to one that was not even though plaintiff did not object to the move because plaintiff did not know that the second location was not fireproof holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement