Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

does not relieve the carrier from liability for goods withheld in transit and injured by its negligence.-Isham v. Erie R. Co., 112 App. Div. (N. Y.) 612, 98 N. Y. Supp. 609.

A stipulation in bill of lading of an initial carrier limiting its liability to its own lines, is valid.-American Hay Co. v. Bath & II. R. Co., 85 N. Y. Supp. 341.

Where goods are billed beyond the line of the initial carrier, it may, by express contract, limit its liability to its own line.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Montfort, 60 Ill. 175; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 Ga. 496, 16 S. E. 220; Central R. & B. Co. v. Avant, 80 Ga. 195, 5 S. E. 78.

If the initial carrier contracts to carry freight to its ultimate destination, it cannot limit its liability for the negligence of the connecting carrier.- Buffington v. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 476, 94 S. W. 991.

Where a carrier receives goods for shipment beyond its own line, notwithstanding provisions of the bill of lading to the contrary, it becomes liable for the transportation of the goods through to its destination, and the connecting lines become its agents, for whose faults it becomes responsible to the owner of the goods.- Virginia Coal Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 98 Va. 776, 37 S. E. 310.

[16] Failure to deliver as evidence of negligence.

The failure of the carrier to deliver a shipment or any part thereof to the consignee at the place of destination is prima facie evidence of negligence.- Canfield v. B. & O. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, revg. s. c. 48 N. Y. Super. 550.

[17] Exemption from and limitation of liability - In general. Limitation of liability on through shipments,- see ante, note [15]. Whether provisions will be construed as limiting liability for negligence, see post. note [27].

Limitation of liability for loss of or injury to baggage,- see post, note [43].

Limitation of liability by underclassification,

see ante, § 34, note [3].

In the absence of any statute controlling the subject, any contract by which a common carrier of goods or passengers undertakes to exempt himself from all responsibility for loss or damage arising from the negligence of himself or his servants is void as against public policy, as attempting to put off the essential duties resting upon every public carrier by virtue of his employment, and as tending to defeat the fundamental principle on which the law of common carriers was established, the securing of utmost care and diligence in the performance of their duties to the public. Chicago. M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18

Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 289, affg. 95 Iowa, 260, 63 N. W. 692; Campania La Flecha v. Bramer, 168 U. S. 104, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 12; 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; Hart v. Pa. R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 151, affg. s. c. 7 Fed. 630; New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357.

A carrier may limit its liability for losses except those occasioned by negligence or misconduct.- York Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 Wall. (U. S.) 107, affg. s. c. Fed. Cases, No. 18,143; Russell v. Erie R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 808, 59 Atl. 150, 67 L. R. A. 433; Smith v. N. C. R. Co., 64 N. C. 235; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Oh. St. 144.

A carrier may refuse to transport a circus train except upon a special contract limiting its liability.- Wilson v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 129 Fed. 774; affd. 133 Fed. 1022.

A carrier cannot limit its common law liability to the extent of exemption from loss of or injury to goods through its negligence.- Thomas v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 63 Fed. 200; affd. 71 Fed. 481; McFadden v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689; Paul v. Pa. R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 442, 57 Atl. 139; Goldey v. Pa. R. Co., 30 Pa. 242.

To permit carriers to fix a limitation to the amount of their liabilities for negligence is, in effect, to permit them to exempt themselves from such liability.- Steamboat City of Norwich, 4 Ben. (U. S.) 271.

Even though transportation is, under the special contract, "at the owner's risk," the carrier is liable for his failure to use reasonable care and prudence.- Canfield v. B. & O. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 532, revg. s. c. 48 N. Y. Super. 550.

In consideration of a reduced fare, a carrier may exempt itself from liability for loss by negligence.- Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, revg. s. c. 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 602.

A carrier can not contract for exemption from liability for injuries or damages resulting from negligence, wilful default or tort of himself or servants. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. 486.

A carrier cannot limit its common liability except with the express assent of the shipper.- Carpenter v. B. & O. R. Co., - - Pen. (Del.) 64 Atl. 252.

A carrier cannot limit its liability for loss resulting from its gross negligence.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chapman, 133 Ill. 96, 24 N. E. 417, 8 L. R. A. 508.

A common carrier cannot contract against liability for its negligence.— Fulbright v. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 482, 94 S. W. 992; Griffin v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. App. 549, 91 S. W. 1015; George v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 358.

The carrier may restrict its common law liability for losses resulting from its negligence.- Ficklin v. Wabash R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 211, 93 S. W. 861.

A stipulation for exemption of a carrier from liability for damage caused by its negligence is void and against public policy.- Potts v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394; McConnell Bros. v. So. R. Co., 144 N. C. 87, 56 S. E. 559; Ullman v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N. W. 41, 56 L. R. A. 246; Ullman v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 112 Wis. 168, 88 N. W. 1103.

While a carrier may not lawfully contract to exempt itself from liability for the consequences of its own negligence, it may contract to limit the amount in which it shall be liable for damage resulting from such cause.Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481, 10 S. E. 749, 6 L. R. A. 849n.

A carrier cannot, by any agreement, however plain and explicit, wholly relieve itself from liability for injuries resulting from its gross negligence or fraud.—Abrams v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 58 N. W. 780.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

A carrier may, by special contract, limit its liability except for injuries or damage caused by negligence.-Arthur v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 204 U. S. 505, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 338; Cau v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 663.

Special contracts between carriers and shippers limiting the carrier's liability are upheld where the terms are just and reasonable and not contrary to public policy, but the law will not allow contracts which amount to an abandonment by the carrier of its obligations to the public.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.

Under a statute of Illinois providing that a carrier can not lawfully limit its common law liability for the safe carriage of property, by any limitation in the receipt given for such property, a special contract, which, in consideration of the extending of a lower rate for shipment to the consignor, limited the liability of the carrier, is valid and binding on the shipper.- Jennings v. Smith, 99 Fed. 189.

The carrier may limit its responsibility by special contract with the shipper within certain limits.- Leitch v. Union R. Transp. Co., Fed. Cases, No. 8224.

A contract limiting a carrier's liability, in consideration of reduced rates, is binding.- Zimmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 460, 33 N. E. 642, affg. s. c. 62 Hun (N. Y.), 619, 16 N. Y. Supp. 631; Hill v. Boston, H. T. & W. R. Co., 144 Mass. 284, 10 N. E. 836.

A contract between the carrier and shipper will not be interpreted as limiting the former's liability unless it clearly and unmistakably does so. Nicholas v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 370.

The rule that a carrier may, by express contract, exempt itself from liability for negligence will not be considered as overthrown or affected in this state by the decision of the United States Supreme Court (Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357) to the contrary.— Mynard v. Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 180, revg. s. c, 7 Hun (N. Y.), 399, distinguishing, Cragin v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61.

A common carrier may, by express contract, limit its common law liability.-Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 N. Y. 166, revg. s. c. 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 69, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 421; Dorr v. N. J. Steam Nav. Co., 11 N. Y. 485; Steiger v. Erie R. Co., 5 Hun (N. Y.), 345; Moore v. Evans, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 524, overruling Gould v. Hill, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 623; Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Chase, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 115.

While carriers may contract for exemptions from common law liability, it must be done in clear and unambiguous terms, and the rule that the language of contracts, if ambiguous, is to be construed against the party using it should be rigidly applied to such contracts.— Edsall v. Camden & A. R. & T. Co., 50 N. Y. 661.

If the shipper pays the rate legally established, an agreement exempting the carrier from liability, in whole or part, is without consideration.— Bissell v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 442, revg. s. c. 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 602.

A carrier may by special contract fix a sum beyond which it will not be liable for a loss upon a shipment.-Jones v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 341, 38 N. Y. Supp. 284; Brown v.. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 568.

A carrier may by special contract limit its liability except from loss occasioned by its fraud or negligence.- Parsons v. Monteath, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 353.

Carriers may by special contract relieve themselves from liability for loss occasioned by the negligence, misconduct, fraud or felony of their employees or servants.-- Heineman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430; Knell v. U. S. & B. Ss. Co., 33 N. Y. Super. 423.

Carriers cannot by contract exempt themselves from liability for their own fraud, or their own wilful act or wanton negligence.- Heineman v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430.

Carriers may limit their liability for negligence in almost any respect by express contract.- Lee v. Marsh, 28 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 275, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 102.

A carrier cannot limit its liability for negligence, but may by special contract with the shipper reasonably restrict his common law liability in other respects. Whether such a special contract is reasonable is a question for the court to determine from all the circumstances of each case.South & N. A. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606.

No contract in limitation of a carrier's liability can exempt it from loss or damage resulting from its own negligence.- Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247; Peerless Mfg. Co. v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 73 N. H. 328, 61 Atl. 511; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 38 L. R. A. 93.

A bill of lading, given by the carrier on receipt of the goods, and accepted by the shipper, is a "special contract" between the parties.Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247.

Under a statute of Illinois providing that a carrier cannot limit its common law liability to safely deliver goods "by any stipulation or limitation in the receipt given for such property," a carrier may by special contract limit its liability for loss not attributable to its negligence or that of its servants.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chapman, 133 Ill. 96, 24 N. E. 417, 8 L. R. A. 508.

Carriers may, by special contract, relieve themselves from their general liability except for injuries or loss caused by negligence.— Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 Ill. 88; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 38 Ill. 355; Hoadley v. Northern Transp. Co., 115 Mass. 304.

A carrier may, by special contract limit its liability against all risks but its own negligence or misconduct.- Squire v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 98 Mass 239; Christenson v. Am. Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 270; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Berdan, 22 Oh. C. C. 326.

Neither notice nor special agreement can be permitted to restrict the common law liability of the carrier.-Jones v. Voorhees, 10 Oh. 145. Where special rates are given in a contract restricting the carrier's liability, the want of consideration for the restriction must be affirmatively proved by the party seeking to avoid the restriction.- Schaller v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042.

A common carrier cannot, by any contract, however explicit, relieve itself from liability for injury resulting from its gross negligence or fraud.- Black v. Goodrich Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 N. W. 244.

[blocks in formation]

The shipper may consent to a just and reasonable stipulation in the bill of lading exempting the carrier from its common law liability, and a contract for exemption from liability for damages by fire is not unjust or unreasonable.- Cau v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 663.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »