Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

complete, the car having been properly placed for delivery of its contents. If the consignee then sells to the complainant, and the carrier, at the order of the original consignee or the complainant, moves the car to the latter's storehouse, that is a new and independent service, for which a reasonable additional charge may be made, and if performed wholly within the state, not within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.-St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 82.

[blocks in formation]

Power of Commission as to switching and demurrage charges,- see post, § 49, note [10].

In the absence of congressional authorization, the Interstate Commerce Commission has no power to require that shippers shall be allowed a certain length of time after the arrival of the car in which to designate the point of delivery.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 82.

[32]

Demurrage charges as violations of long and short haul

rule.

The long and short haul rule of the Interstate Commerce Act does not apply to rates of which a part are demurrage charges; but if such demurrage charges when added to transportation rates, result in greater aggregate charges in certain cases than in other cases involving longer hauls, this may constitute an undue preference as between localities.— Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

§ 38. Liability for damage to property in transit; * [duty of carrier to furnish bill of lading; limitation of liability; liability for loss by delay; regulations as to baggage].— Every common carrier and every railroad corporation and street railroad corporation shall, upon demand, issue either a receipt or bill of lading for all property delivered to it for transportation. No contract, stipulation or clause in any receipt or bill of lading shall exempt or be held to exempt any common carrier, railroad corporation or street railroad corporation from any liability for loss, damage or injury caused by it to freight or property from the time of its delivery for transportation until the same shall have been received at its destination and a reasonable time shall have elapsed after notice to consignee of * Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed.

such arrival to permit of the removal of such freight or property. Every common carrier, railroad corporation and street railroad corporation shall be liable for all loss, damage or injury to property caused by delay in transit due to negligence while the same is being carried by it, but in any action to recover for damages sustained by delay in transit the burden of proof shall be upon the defendant to show that such delay was not due to negligence. Every common carrier and railroad corporation shall be liable for loss, damage and injury to property carried as baggage up to the full value and regardless of the character thereof, but the value in excess of one hundred and fifty dollars shall be stated upon delivery to the carrier, and a written receipt stating the value shall be issued by the carrier, who may make a reasonable charge for the assumption of such liability in excess of one hundred and fifty dollars and for the carriage of baggage exceeding one hundred and fifty pounds in weight upon a single ticket. Nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law.

Penalties and forfeitures for failure to give a bill of lading,- see post, § 56.

For parallel provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 20, post, Appendix B.

Terms on which goods will be received for transportation must be announced in published schedules,- see ante, § 28.

False billing, classification, report of weights, etc., forbidden,— see ante, § 34.

Power of Commission to order changes in time schedules, etc.,- see post, § 51.

Who are common carriers,- see ante, § 2, notes [2]-[7].

What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,- see ante, § 2, note [8].

[1] Duty to give bill of lading.

Limitation of liability in general,- see post, notes [17]-[25]. Whether carriers can be compelled to give bill of lading beyond their own lines, see ante, § 35, note [21].

There is no rule of common law which requires a common carrier to give a bill of lading.-Johnson v. Stoddard, 100 Mass. 306.

[2] What law governs.

The validity of a stipulation in a bill of lading limiting the carrier's liability depends on the law of the state of contract.- Liverpool

& G. W. S. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 469, affg. s. c. 22 Fed. 715, 17 Fed. 377; Myrick v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 1 Sup Ct. R. (U. S.) 425, revg. Fed. Cases No. 10,001; The Henry B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681; McDaniel v. R. Co., 24 Iowa, 412; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503, 32 S. W. 168, 36 S. W. 18, 34 L. R. A. 685; Meuer v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 S. Dak. 94, 75 N. W. 323; Pittman v. Pac. Exp. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 59 S. W. 949.

Although a state statute provides that no contract shall in any way affect the common law liability of a carrier for loss of or injury to goods transported, it seems that a valid contract can be made in that state limiting the liability of a railroad company in another state.Platt v. Richmond, Y. R. & C. R. Co., 108 N. Y. 358, 15 N. E. 393.

If any limitation of the carrier's liability is prohibited by the law of the state where the contract was made, such limitation is void and unenforceable in this state.- Barnes v. L. I. R. Co., 47 Misc. (N. Y.) 318, 93 N. Y. Supp. 616; revd. on other grounds, 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 44, 100 N. Y. Supp. 593.

A contract of carriage limiting the liability of the carrier, made in Pennsylvania where it has been held that carriers may not limit their liability for negligence, is effectual to limit the carrier's liability where the breach occurred in New York State.-Cappel v. Weir, 46 Misc. 441, 92 N. Y. Supp. 365.

A bill of lading is governed by the law of the state where it is issued.- National Bank v. B. & O. R. Co., 99 Md. 661, 59 Atl. 134.

[3] Contents of bill.

Limitation of liability by stipulation in bill of lading,- see post, note [19].

Where instructions for shipping are out of the ordinary course and the agent consents to bill by the route indicated, it should appear on the bill of lading.- Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 481.

[4] Customs and usages.

A shipper and carrier, in contracting for transportation as to which known usages prevail, incorporate such usages by implication into their contract, if nothing to the contrary is said.- Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1.

The general course of business in the transportation of property by a common carrier, if generally established, may be shown and will govern in the construction of a general engagement for shipment of property, where the proposal of the contracting party makes

no reference to the exemptions and limitations of the carrier. Under such circumstances, the shipper is to be regarded as contemplating such usage when the proposal is made for the contract of carriage, and the carrier will be protected by limitations and exemptions contained in a bill of lading issued in pursuance of such contract.— Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1; Donovan v. Standard Oil Co., 155 N. Y. 112, 49 N. E. 678; Robertson v. National Ss. Co., 139 N. Y. 416, 34 N. E. 1053; Robinson v. N. Y. & Texas Ss. Co., 63 App. Div. (N. Y.) 211, 71 N. Y. Supp. 424.

[5] Validity of bill of lading in general.

Whether provisions will be construed as limiting liability for negligence, see post, note [27].

-

Giving of rebate does not invalidate bill of lading so as to exempt carrier from liability,― see ante, § 31, note [13].

In the absence of fraud or mistake, a shipper cannot invalidate a bill of lading containing special stipulations, by showing that he signed it without reading.-Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala. 340, 8 So. 649.

[6] Bill of lading as affected by allowance of rebates.

Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the allowance of rebates does not vitiate the bill of lading or the contract of affreightment, nor exempt the carrier from liability on its bill of lading.- Merchant's Cotton Press & S. Co. v. N. A. Ins. Co., 151 U. S. 368, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 367, affg. s. c. sub nom. Ins. Cos. v. Carrier Cos., 91 Tenn. 537, 19 S. W. 755

[7] Doubt as to construction of bill of lading.

Any reasonable doubt as to the proper construction of the printed portion of a bill of lading should be strictly resolved against the carrier who prepared it.- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Doyle, 142 Fed. 669.

[8] Bill of lading the sole contract.

In the absence of proof of mistake or fraud, the bill of lading, receipt or voucher is the final and sole agreement between the carrier and shipper.- Long v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 76.

[9] Liability of carrier in general.

Liability on through shipments,- see post, notes [14], [15].
Limitation of liability,- see post, notes [17]-[25].

Liability of carriers for delay in transporting,- see post, notes [29][37].

Liability of carrier for loss of or injury to baggage,- see post, notes [41]-[42].

Giving of rebate does not invalidate bill of lading so as to exempt carrier from liability,- see ante, § 31, note [13].

In the absence of express contract, a common carrier is, at common law, liable for all loss or damage sustained by the property in its hands as carrier, unless caused by the act of God or the public enemy.Leitch v. Union R. Transp. Co., Fed. Cases, No. 8224.

If a carrier deviates from the route specified in the bill of lading, it becomes an insurer of the goods, even against unavoidable casualty.Maghee v. Camden & A. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514; Robertson v. National Ss. Co., 139 N. Y. 416, 34 N. E. 1053, revg. s. c. 17 N. Y. Supp. 459.

Where a person, intending to proceed on his journey on the next boat, which leaves the following day, delivers his baggage at the office of a transportation company, that company holds the same as common carrier, and is answerable for its safe keeping.- Camden Transp. Co. v. Belknap, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 354.

A carrier is liable for damage to goods through inevitable accident, or what is termed "the act of God," if by his culpable negligence or unreasonable delay in transportation and delivery he unnecessarily exposes the goods to the peril.- Read v. Spaulding, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 395; affd. 30 N. Y. 630.

No bill of lading is necessary to create the liability of a common carrier. The mere reception of goods for the purpose of transporting them is sufficient. Shelton v. Merchants' D. Trans. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. 527; revd. on other grounds, 59 N. Y. 258.

A railroad is a common carrier, and assumes the liabilities of such as to its returning of empty oil cars to their original place of shipment, even though it receives no direct or special pecuniary compensation for such service.- Spears v. L. S. & M. S. R., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 513.

[10] Liability as warehouseman.

Duty of carrier to make reasonable storage charges,- see ante, § 26, note [29].

Rates and regulations as to depot storage to be published in schedules, - see ante, § 28, note [18].

If a consignee neglect to receipt or to receive goods, the carrier is not thereby justified in abandoning them or exposing them to injury, but may relieve himself from responsibility by placing the goods in a warehouse for and on account of the consignee, but so long as he has the custody, a duty devolves upon him to take care of the property and preserve it from injury.- Scheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510, 22 N. E. 1073.

Where the consignee of goods is unknown to the carrier, and his occupation, and place of residence or occupation are unknown, and said con

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »