Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 48 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 48 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


"Right of Subsequent Carrier to Benefit of Limitations by First Carrier," §§
377S-3786.

§ 3737. Losses Covered. — Liability Limited to Carrier's Own Line —

In General. — A carrier receiving goods for shipment to a point ofif its own line
is not, in the face of an express provision in the contract to the contrary, liable
for damages beyond its own line,^^ but only for injuries to the property occurring
on its line, or while the goods were in its possession,^- whether the shipment is of
goods ^^ or live stock.^^ It has been so held where there was a stipulation pro-
viding that no connecting carrier shall be liable for any loss or damage except
what occurred on its own line ; ^■"' that only the carrier in whose custody the
goods were at the time of the loss should be liable therefor ; '•^'^ that delivery of the
shipment to another carrier to complete the transportation should terminate all
liability of the first carrier ; '^'' that the carrier shall not be liable for loss after
the property is ready for delivery to the next carrier.^^



SI. Liability limited to carrier's own
line. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Tarter, 19
Ky. L. Rep. 229, 39 S. W. 698.

92. Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Tarter, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 229, 39 S. W. 698.

South Carolina. — Moody v. Southern
Railway, 79 S. C. 297, 60 S. E. 711.

Texas.— Gnli, etc., R. Co. v. Kimble, 49
Tex. Civ. App. 622, 109 S. W. 234.

Wisconsin. — Tolman v. Abbot, 78 Wis.
192. 47 X. W. 264.

93. Shipment of goods.— Gulf, etc., R.
Co. r. Kimble, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 109
S. W. 234; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Allcorn
(Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. }V. 186.

94. Live stock shipment. — Interna-
tional, etc., R. Co. V. Heittner, 42 Tex.
Civ. App. 617, 94 S. W. 189.

95. Where plaintiff shipped household
goods over a route consisting of several
connecting carriers, under a bill of lad-
ing limiting the liability of each to neg-
ligence occurring on its own line, the
charging or delivering carrier was only
liable for injuries to the property occur-
ring on its line, or while the goods were
in its possession. Walter v. Alabama,
etc., R. Co., 39 So. 87, 142 Ala. 474.

Where a bill of lading contained a pro-
vision, in substance, that no connecting
carrier should be held liable for any loss
or damage lo goods, except what oc-
curred on its own route, and it was shown
by proof thai the damage occurred after
the defendants had delivered the goods
safely, and in good time, order, and con-
dition, to a connecting company or car-
rier, any right of action which may have
accrued to the ])laintiff floes not exist
against the defendants. Schiff v. New
York, etc., R. C><. (X. ^'.). .'.2 How.
I'rac. :>].

96. Carrier having custody of goods. —
Blount T-. I'cnnsvlvania R. C)., II'.) \. Y.
S. r,.-,.

Perishables. — A carrier of perishable
friiglit, uiKlcr a bill of lading stipuhiting
for through shipment and providing that
only the carrier in whose custody the
gofids were at the time of the loss should



be liable therefor, is liable only for neg-
ligence occurring on its own line. Blount
7'. Pennsylvania R. Co.. 119 X. Y. S. 65.

Goods to be forwarded by a lake line.
— Trustees in possession of a r.qilroad,
and of a dock and warehouse at the ter-
minus of such road, had certain goods
delivered at the dock to be shipped by
a lake line, over which they had no con-
trol, and in the earnings of which they
had no interest. On receiving the goods,
they gave a shipping receipt, providing
that their liability should cease at their
depot at which freight was to be deliv-
ered to another carrier, and, "for all loss
and damage occurring in the transit of
said packages, the legal remedy shall be
against the particular carrier or for-
warder only in whose custody the said
packages may actually be at the time of
the happening thereof, it being under-
stood that the trustees * * * assume
no other responsibility for their safe car-
riage or safety than may be incurred on
their own road." Held, that neither the
trustees nor the road were liable for dam-
ages to the goods while in transit on the
lake. Tolman v. Abbot, 78 Wis. 192, 47
X. W. 264.

97. Delivery to succeeding carrier to
terminate liability. — A paper given by
common carriers to the person sending
a package acknowledged the receipt of
the package addressed to a place beyond
their route, and declared that it was re-
ceived on the special agreement that they
should forward it to their agent nearest
or most convenient to destination only,
and should then deliver it to other par-
tie? to complete the transportation, such
delivery to terminate all liability of said
carriers for the package. Held, that
they were not liable for a loss occurring
layond tiieir route. Pendergast f. Ad-
ams Kxp. Co.. 101 Mass. 120.

98. Shipment ready for delivery to next
carrier. — Under a bill of lading provid-
ing that a carrier shall not be liable for
loss not proved to have occurred on his
own road, or after the property is ready



§ Z7Z7



CARRIERS.



3354



Injuries Sustained Through Negligence of Succeeding Carrier. — A

valid stipulation by the initial carrier against liability for a loss occurring be-
yond its own line precludes a recovery against the initial carrier for damage to
the goods occurring on the line of a succeeding carrier and by reason of the
negligence of such succeeding carrier according to the doctrine which prevails
in most states, among which are Georgia,^*^ Kentucky/ Missouri ^ and New
York.^ But where the exemption in the contract of shipment is merely for the
purpose of fixing liability as between the several carriers and not restricting lia-
bility to the shipper, the initial carrier is liable for a loss not occurring on its
own line and caused by the negligence of a succeeding carrier.-*

Damages Resulting from Negligence at Inception of Shipment. —
Though the carrier's contract be only over its own line, and contains an exemp-
tion from negligence beyond its own line, yet it is liable for damages resulting
from its negligence at the inception of the shipment, though such damages occur
beyond its line;^ as, for instance, where the loss results from failure to furnish
a suitable car for the entire trip ; "^ from unskillful, improper and negligent load-



to deliver" to the next carrier, the carrier
is not liable for damages to freight on a
connecting line. Dunbar v. Charleston,
etc., R. Co., 40 S. E. 884, 62 S. C. 414;
Moody V. Southern Railway, 79 S. C.
297, 60 S. E. 711.

99. Injuries sustained through negli-
gence of succeeding carrier. — Savannah,
etc., R. Co. V. Austin, 101 Ga. 629, 29 S.
E. 11; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo,
90 Ga. 496, 16 S. E. 220; Central R., etc.,
Co. V. Avant, 80 Ga. 195, 5 S. E. 78.

Where a special contract was made and
signed between a railroad company and
a consignor for a shipment of watermel-
ons in which it was stipulated that the
liability of each company over whose
lines shipments should be made should
cease as a common carrier at the station
where delivered to the next carrier or to
the consignee, such a contract was bind-
ing; and where the evidence showed that
the melons were delivered by the first
railroad to the next road in the connect-
ing line in good condition and were trans-
ferred by another railroad in the con-
necting line from the cars in which they
were shipped to other cars, and were
tendered to the consignee in a bruised
and damaged condition, the first road in
the line was not liable therefor; espe-
cially where one of the stipulations of
the contract was, that the railroad com-
pany should not be liable for "losses oc-
curring from the perishable nature o*
inherent defects of the property shipped."
Central R., etc., Co. v. Avant, 80 Ga. 195,
5 S. E. 78.

1. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Chestnut &
Bro., 72 S. W. 351, 115 Ky. 43, 24 Ky. L.
Rep. 1846.

2. McLendon v. Wabash R. Co., 119
Mo. App. 128, 95 S. W. 943; State Nat.
Bank v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo.
App. 82.

3. A railroad company received freight
for shipment to a point beyond its line,
giving a receipt therefor containing a
provision that it should not be liable for



loss by any other carrier after the freight
left the warehouse at its terminus. Held,
that it was not liable for damages to a
shipment caused by the negligence of a
connecting carrier. Irwin v. New York
Cent. R. Co.. 1 Thomp. & C. 473, affirmed
in 59 N. Y. 653.

4. Exemption clause to fix liability to
several carriers. — Eckles v. Missouri Pac.
R. Co., 112 :\Io. App. 240, 87 S. W. 99.

5. Damages resulting from negligence
at inception of shipment. — Popham v.
Piarnard, IT Mo. App. 619.

6. Furnishing unsuitable cars. — Where
the damage to goods was caused by neg-
ligence in furnishing an unsuitable car',
the fact that the damage actually oc-
curred on another line will not enable the
first carrier to escape liability to its own
line. Hunt v. Nutt (Tex. Civ. App.), 27
S. W. 1031; International, etc., R. Co. z'.
Aten (Tex. Civ. App.), 81 S. W._346.

Where a carrier's agent was informed
that plaintiff desired the use of a car for
the shipment of bees, but furnished a car
which was unsuitable therefor, and so
defective that the bees were injured after
the car had left defendant's road and was
in the possession of a connecting carrier
the carrier was liable therefor. Interna-
tional, etc., R. Co. V. Aten (Tex. Civ.
App.), 81 S. W. 346.

Leaky roof. — Defendant railroad con-
tracted to transport a car load of pota-
toes for plaintiff, the car to be sent over
defendant's road to a certain point, and
thence forwarded over connecting roads.
The shipping order provided that no car-
rier should be liable for loss or damage
not occurring on its own road or its
portion of the through route, nor after
the property was ready for delivery to
the next carrier. After the car was trans-
ferred to a connecting road the potatoes
were injured by rain, by reason of the
defective condition of the car roof. Held,
that defendant was not absolved from
liability by the shipping order, as by its
contract it was bound to furnish a suita-



3355



LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.



§ 17Z7



ing ; " or from its negligent misdirection ^ or billing '•* the goods, although the
negligence of a succeeding carrier concurred in causing the delay and incurred
the damages. 1"

Damage from Delay Generally. — One of several carriers, over whose
line goods were shipped on a through bill of lading, restricting the liability of
each to damages occurring on its own line, held liable only for delay in trans-
portation on its line.^^

Delay in Delivery to Succeeding Carrier. — A railroad company chargea-
ble with unreasonable delay in holding a shipment is liable for the natural con-
sequences thereof, even beyond its own line,^- although it has limited its liability



ble car for the entire trip and deliver
the car and cargo to the connecting line
in good condition. Kibby v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co., 105 N. W. 769, 142 Mich.
313.

7. Where the bill of lading contained a
stipulation that no carrier sliould be liable
for loss or damage to the described prop-
erty not occurring on its own road or
its portion of the through route, held,
that if the injury or damage resulting
from the unskillful, improper, and negli-
gent manner in which the initial carrier
piled the boxes in the cars in which they
were transported to their destination, it
would be liable for the total injury or
damage. Davis v. New York, etc., R.
Co., 72 N. W. 823, 70 Minn. 37.

Where the damage to goods was
caused by negligence in furnishing an un-
suitable car, the fact that the damage
actually occurred on another line will
not enable the first carrier to escape lia-
bility to its own line. Hunt v. Xutt
(Tex. Civ. App.\ 27 S. \V./;03t.

8. Loss by negligent misdirection or
billing of initial carrier. — Exemption m
the contract of carriage from loss or
damage beyond the line of the forwarder
will not relieve the latter where such
damage is brought about by his own
negligent misdirection. Hoffman v. Del-
aware, etc., R. Co., 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 47.

Where the terms of a bill of lading
limited the liability of connecting car-
riers to the line on which a loss or in-
jury might occur, defendant, as initial
carrier, was liable for a delay in delivery
caused by its failure to properly direct
the goods. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. South-
ern, etc., Cabinet Co., 58 S. W. 303, 104
Tenn. 5f)8. 50 L. R. A. 729.

9. .\ railway company limiting its lia-
bility to its own line in a contract of
shipment of freight is lial)lc for the neg-
ligence of its agent in billing the freight
to a different place on the line of the
connecting carrier from that called for
in the contract. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Harris (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 71.

10. Concurring negligence of succeed-
ing carrier. — .\n initial carrier, by whose
negligcniH; goofls have been misdirected
and thereby delayed in delivery, can not
escape any part of the resulting loss or
damage by reason of a limitation of its
liability in the bill of lading, to loss or
damages occurring on its own line, al-



though the negligence of a connecting
carrier concurred and contributed to
cause the delay and increase the dam-
ages. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Southern,
etc.. Cabinet Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 58 S. W.
303, 50 L. R. A. 729.

11. Damage from delay generally. — St.
Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cohen (Tex. Civ.
App.), 55 S. W. 1123.

Damages from delay of live stock

International, etc., R. Co. v. Earnest
(Tex. Civ. App.), 77 S. W. 29; St. Louis,
etc., R. Co. V. Stokes, 44 Tex. Civ. App.
22Cf, 99 S. W. 120.

12. Delay in delivery to succeeding
carrier.— San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v.
Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W.
792.

Plaintiff shipped over defendant's rail-
road certain wool for transportation to
New York in connection with a steam-
ship line, under a bill of lading limiting
defendant's liability to its own line. Had
the wool been transported with reason-
able dispatch to the port where the
water transportation was to begin, it
would have arrived before 10 o'clock a.
m., October 20, 1900, but did not in fact
arrive until October 26th, when it , was
transported by steamer to New York, and
delivered on November 21, 1900. From
October 19, to November 14, 1900, the
market value in wool in New York was
20 cents per pound, but thereafter the
price continually declined until after de-
livery. Held that, in the absence of ex-
planation, the long delay on defendant's
line constituted negligence which at least
concurred with the negligence of the
steamship line, if any, and hence defend-
ant was liable for damages resulting
therefrom. Butterick Pub. Co. v. Gulf,
etc., R. Co., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 640, 88 S.
W. 299.

Where goods were delivered to a car-
rier for shipment to a point beyond the
terminus of its road, under a bill of lad-
ing containing a provision that the car-
rier should not be liable after the prop-
erty was ready for delivery to the next
carrier, it is nevertheless liable for with-
holding for seven days delivery to the
lighters which were to transfer the goods
to their destination. Judgment, 9S N.
Y. S. 609, 112 App. Div. 612, aflirmed in
Isham V. Erie R. Co., 85 N. E. 1111, 191
N. Y. 547



§ 7)72)7 CARRIERS. 3356

to its own line.

Loss by Fire While Awaiting Transhipment. — But where a carrier trans-
ported goods to a seaport under a bill of lading providing that no carrier should
be liable for loss or damage after said goods were ready for delivery to the next
carrier, and deposited them in its warehouse to await the arrival of the boats of
the next carrier which had no warehouse, and they were delayed by fire not
caused by the first carrier's negligence, the first carrier was not liable.^"

Loss Caused by Delay on Connecting Lines. — Where a bill of lading stip-
ulates against liability for negligence of connecting lines, the carrier is not re-
sponsible for delay in delivering goods in time for a particular market, where
it is not shown that the delay occurred on its own line.^"*

Deviation or Diversion. — Where a carrier issues a through bill of lading
to a point beyond its line and contracts that it shall not be liable for damage not
occurring on its line, and the route is designated in the contract and the carrier
selects another carrier to complete the transportation and damage occurs, the
initial carrier is responsible.^-^

Deviation from Prescribed Route to Terminus of Initial Carrier's
Line. — Where an initial carrier unnecessarily deviated from the route prescribed
in the bill of lading by delivering them to another company at an intermediate
common point to be carried to the initial carrier's terminus, the initial carrier
was liable for damages to the goods on the other company's line, though the
contract of shipment provided that it should be liable only for losses occurring
on its own line, since it was in the wrong, and it would be impossible to determine
that the loss would have occurred had there not been a deviation. ^^^

Failure of Connecting Carrier to Ice Perishables. — Where a bill of lad-
ing, providing that the carrier should not be liable for loss or damage not ac-
cruing on its route or in its proportion of the through route, etc., contained, after
the description of the property, which was perishable, the statement, "Ice when
needed," the carrier did not thereby obligate itself to see that the goods were
properly iced on all connecting routes.^"
Reloading Goods to Be Forwarded without Change of Cars. — A rail-
is. Loss by fire while awaiting tran- abuse of the shipment while iti the hands
shipment. — A bill of lading provided that of a connecting road other than that over
goods should be delivered to successive which it had contracted to ship Texas,
carriers, and that no carrier should be etc., R. Co. v. Boggs (Tex. Civ. App.), 40-
liable for loss or damage after said goods S. W. 20.

were ready for delivery to the next car- Contract to forward by all rail route—

rier. .A railroad company transported the Delivery to steamboat. — A contract by
goods to a seaport with proper diligence. the first of several carriers in a route to
The goods were deposited in the railroad forward goods by railroad, in good order,
company's warehouse ready for shipment to the terminus of the whole route, at a
when the boats of the connecting carrier stipulated price, is an entirety. If, at the
should arrive. The connecting carrier end of his own line, he changes their
had no warehouse or dock. While the route by delivering them to a second car-
goods v.^ere awaiting transportation, they rier, to go on by steamboat, he assumes
were destroyed by fire, not caused by de- the risk of transportation, and is liable
fendant's negligence. Held, that the for any loss or damage, in the subse-
railroad company was not liable. Cour- quent transit, notwithstanding a stipula-
teen v. Kanawha Dispatch, 86 N. W. 176, tion that he shall not be responsible for
110 Wis. 610, 55 L. R. A. 182. any damage if receipted for in good or-

14. Loss caused by delay on connect- der at the end of his own line. Fatman
ing lines. — ?itobile, etc., R. Co. v. Francis & Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 2 Disn.
(Miss,), 9 So. 508. 248, 13 O. Dec. 152.

15. Deviation or diversion. — Southern 16. Deviation from prescribed route to
R. Co. T. Frank Sz; Co., 5 Ga. App. 574, 63 terminus of initial carrier.— St. Louis,
S. F. 656. etc., R. Co. ;-. Caldwell, 89 Ark. 218, 116

Damages caused by abuse of shipment. S. W. 210. •

—A contract limiting the liability of a 17. Failure of connecting carrier to ice

company to damages occurring on its perishables. — Farnsworth v. New York,

own lines does not exempt the company etc., R. Co., 84 N. Y. S. 658, 88 App. Div.

from liability for damages caused by the 320.



3357 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. § 3737

way company, which in receiving freight, stipulated against responsibihty for
damage beyond its own line, but agreed to forward the goods through to desti-
nation in the cars in which they were loaded, by changing the cars after they
left the road of the company, assumes the risk of the safe transportation of the
goods, notwithstanding the stipulation against liability for damage beyond its
own line.^*^

Escape of Animal from Defective Cars. — Where a railway company un-
dertakes to transport live stock, it is its duty to furnish good and sufficient cars
in which to carry the same, and if it does not, and animals escape, from defects
in its cars, beyond the terminus of its road, it will be liable for the loss, even
though tliere be a special contract limiting its liability to the end of the road.^^

Reloading Stock into Defective Cars. — Where n contract for the shipment
of live .stock stipulates that the carrier shall be relieved from all liability after
the delivery of the stock to its connecting line, no action will lie against the first
carrier for injuries to the stock after it has been reloaded on the cars of the
connecting carrier, caused by a defect in such cars.-"

Refusal to Unload Live Stock within Twenty-Eight Hours. — A contract
to ship cattle made with defendant railroad company, relieving it of all liability
beyond the line of its own road, does not permit defendant to escape the conse-
quences of its failure to comply with the shipper's request to unload the cattle
after being kept in the cars for more than 28 hours, contrary to Rev. St. U. S.
§ 4386, though after the connecting carrier had refused to take the cars; and it
is immaterial that the shipper has a remedy against the connecting carrier for
refusing to accept and unload the cattle.-^

Delay in Delivery after Arrival at Destination. — Where an initial con-
necting carrier's liability was limited to its own line, and it appeared that the
injury to the goods resulted in delay in delivery after reaching destination, the
shipper could not recover against the initial carrier,^^ as, for instance, where a
connecting carrier delivered goods received to the next connecting carrier with-
out negligence on its part and there is delay because of a subsequent transaction
between the last connecting carrier and the consignee, whereby the goods were
stored at the terminus, by his request, until he could communicate with his con-
signor, which resulted in the absolute refusal of the consignee to receive the
goods five weeks later. -'"^

Injuries Developing after Shipment Has Passed from Carrier's Line.
— Though a stock shipment contract relieves the carrier "from liability of every
kind," after the stock shall have left its road the shipper may recover for injury
to the stock while on such carrier's line, though such injury developed or be-
came a[;parent after the animals had left that line.-'* As, for instance, where
injury results from failure to properly bed cattle car,2>> or where a car of live

18. Reloading goods to be forwarded 24. Injuries developing after shipment
without change of cars. — Galveston, etc., has passed from carrier's line. — Ft.
R. Co. :■. Allison, o9 Tex. KK!. Worth, vie. k. Co. ".'. Dagi?ett, 87 Tex.

19. Escape of animal from defective ■]22. 28 S. W. r)25; Texas, t;tc.. R. Co. v.
cars.— Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Strain, Stephens (Tex. Civ. App.), 86 S. W. 933.
"I 1" '''"t- 25. Failure to properly bed cattle cars.

20. Reloading stock into defective cars. — A contract for the sliiimunt of cattle,
— Gulf, etc., R. Co. f. Tennani Cl'ex. Civ. Hniiting the initial carrier's liability to
App.), 22 S. W. 701. damages for loss or injury occurring on

21. Refusal to unload live stock within '^^ 'l'"'' ^'"<^- ^l"'-:' ""} preclude the ship-
twenty-eight hours -Texas etc R Co ''^''' '''"'" recovermg from the initiai car-
V. Birclifiel.l, I'.i Tex. Civ. ;\pp :i2s. 40 S. ''"''' <H^ '"»«.<;'. =^ resultuig from Us negli-
W. 900. gence m failing to properly bed the cars

no r\ 1 • 1 1- r • , '" the first place, although the injuries

H^^LJ?; ^^ r" '^<=l'v"y.,after arrival at occasioning such damages did not de-
destinat.on.-Coats v. Ch.cago, etc., R. ,.^,0,, i,„til after the cattle had left such

carrier's line, anrl were in the hamls of a

23. Delay caused by transactions be- criwucting carrier. Texas Cent. R. Co.



(•" '°, 111 r 1 K- V K ";!,r '' '■' ^'^'op until after the cattle had left such

' ■ ■■ ' ■ ■'' ' ' - • ''•■ ■'-•'• carrier's line, anrl were in the hamls of a



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 48 of 214)