immunities provided in the contract made by the initial carrier are not extended beyond the transportation imposed by this contract on such initial carrier who made it. The connecting carriers, in such a case, carry not on behalf of the first carrier, but on behalf of the owner, and these must in turn protect themselves by contracts which they themselves make with such owner or his authorized agent.

These contracts, for transporting the goods over the lines beyond that of the initial carrier, however, are frequently made by the initial carrier, acting on behalf of the shipper, with the connecting carrier. In such cases it is generally held that the initial carrier has the authority to make with such connecting carriers a contract similar in terms to that made by the shipper with the first carrier, and providing for the same limitations as to the liability of such connecting carrier." Or such contract might be binding on the shipper, even though differing from the contract with the original carrier, when the contract in question with the connecting carrier is the one usually made by the connecting carrier in like cases and the shipper has knowledge of this fact."1

SAME BURDEN OF PROOF

128. When the carrier seeks to escape liability on the ground that the loss of or injury to the goods was due to causes as to which he is exempt under his contract, the burden of proof rests upon the carrier to bring such loss or injury within his contractual exemption.

We have already seen that at common law the shipper makes out a prima facie case against the carrier by showing a delivery of the goods to, and their acceptance by, the carrier, and the carrier's failure to deliver the goods or his delivery of them in a damaged condition. When the carrier's defense is that the loss. or injury falls within the exemption or limitation contained in the contract with the shipper, the law properly imposes upon the car

92

as a consideration for exemption from liability on the part of the owner of the goods; and, there being no express contract with him, the law will not imply one for his benefit."

90 Lamb v. Camden & A. R. & Transp. Co., 46 N. Y. 271, 7 Am. Rep. 327.

91 As to the authority of a carrier to bind the shipper by a contract with a connecting carrier limiting the liability of the latter, see, in favor of such authority, The St. Hubert, 107 Fed. 727, 46 C. C. A. 603; Rawson v. Holland, 59 N. Y. 611, 17 Am. Rep. 394; Levy v. Southern Exp. Co., 4 S. C 234. 92 Ante, § 118.

rier the duty of affirmatively proving this." There is certainly no ground, in the absence of such proof on the part of the carrier, for any presumption that the loss or injury was due to a cause which the contract excepts. If, for example, the contract released the carrier from responsibility for losses "due to fire not caused by carrier's negligence," the shipper need not show that the loss was due to some cause other than fire, but the carrier must prove that the loss was the result of the specific exception-fire." Since the means of knowledge as to the causes of loss or injury are peculiarly the carrier's, this rule imposes no undue burden on the carrier and is consistent with both justice and convenience.

Negligence of Carrier

As we shall soon see," the carrier is not permitted to absolve himself from liability for his negligence. When, therefore, not only a peril excepted by contract, but also the negligence of the carrier, is involved in the loss or injury, the question as to the burden of proof is more complicated. In such cases, the holdings of the courts. are utterly at variance with one another.

According to what is perhaps the majority view, the carrier is prima facie relieved of liability when he proves that the loss or injury was due to a cause exempted by his contract, and the burden of showing the negligence of the carrier (thus fixing liability on him in spite of the contractual exemption) rests on the shipper."

9 Southern Exp. Co. v. Newby, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783; Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. v. Greer, 2 Ga. App. 516, 58 S. E. 782; Carter & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 34, 59 S. E. 209; Browning v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 78 Wis. 391, 47 N. W. 428, 10 L. R. A. 415, 23 Am. St. Rep. 414; The Niagara v. Cordes, 21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; Johnson v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 69 Miss. 191, 11 South. 104, 30 Am. St. Rep. 534; Schaller v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Bachmann, 28 Ohio St. 144; Bonfiglio v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 476, 84 N. W. 722; Hall v. Cheney, 36 N. H. 26; Mitchell v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236, 32 S. E. 671, 44 L. R. A. 515. Of course the carrier, relying on the contract as a defense, must prove this contract, with the elements of contractual validity. Deierling v. Wabash R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 292, 146 S. W. 814; Adams Express Co. v. Adams, 29 App. D. C. 250; Illinois Match Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 250 Ill. 396, 95 N. E. 492.

94 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 653, 14 S. W. 314; Little Rock, M. R. & T. Ry. Co. v. Talbot, 39 Ark. 523.

95 Post, § 130.

9 The conflict here is the same, whether the particular exemption be one implied by law (e. g., act of God) or whether it be one created by contract (e. g., fire). The considerations set forth and cases cited in discussing this question as to the exceptions implied by law are also applicable here. See ante, p. 349, notes 60, 61. See, also. Insurance Co. of North America v. Lake & W. R. Co., 152 Ind. 333, 53 N. E. 382; Smith v. American Exp. Co., 108 Mich. 572, 66 N. W. 479; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, 13 L. Ed. 985; The Lennox (D. C.) 90 Fed. 308; Buck v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. 170,

The basis of this holding seems to be that the law presumes that one has lived up to his duty rather than that there has been a failure in this respect. According, too, to some of the courts, the conditions of modern transportation do not require any stricter rule. as to the carriers.

A great many courts, however, hold that the carrier must go further than showing merely that the loss or injury was due to a cause excepted by his contract and that he must also prove that such loss or injury was in no way due to his negligence." This rule has, to commend it, the strong consideration of convenience, since the carrier's means of showing the absence of negligence are at hand, while the shipper, having no control over the goods or first-hand knowledge of the methods and details of transportation, has great difficulty in proving affirmatively the negligence of the carrier.98

Very much the same considerations apply here as in the case (already discussed)" of the burden of proof as to the carrier's negligence when loss or injury is due to one of the perils excepted from the carrier's insuring liability by the common law, such as, for example, the act of God.

24 Atl. 678, 30 Am. St. Rep. 800; Sager v. Portsmouth S. & P. & E. R. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dec. 659; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Bone, 52 Ark. 26, 11 S. W. 958; Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cotton-Press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 14 S. W. 317, 24 Am. St. Rep. 586; Kelham v. The Kensington, 24 La. Ann. 100; Standard, etc., Co. v. White Line Cent. Transit Co., 122 Mo. 258, 26 S. W. 704./

97 Georgia Southern & F. R. Co. v. Greer, 2 Ga. App. 516, 58 S. E. 782; Carter & Co. v. Southern R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 34, 59 S. E. 209; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Oriental Oil Co., 51 Tex. Civ. App. 336, 111 S. W. 979; Hinton v. Eastern Ry. Co., 72 Minn. 339, 75 N. W. 373; Crawford v. Southern Ry. Co., 56 S. C. 136, 34 S. E. 80; Johnson v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 69 Miss. 191, 11 South. 104, 30 Am. St. Rep. 534; Union Exp. Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 595; Brown v. Adams Exp. Co., 15 W. Va. 812; Hinkle v. Southern Ry. Co., 126 N. C. 932, 36 S. E. 348, 78 Am. St. Rep. 685. See cases cited, p. 349, note, 61.

98 Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209, 31 N. E. 853; Mitchell v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 124 N. C. 236, 32 S. E. 671, 44 L. R. A. 515; Johnstone v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 39 S. C. 55, 17 S. E. 512. See cases cited in preceding note.

See ante, § 118.

VALIDITY OF SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS-STIPULA-
TIONS RELIEVING CARRIER OF LIABIL-
ITY SAVE FOR NEGLIGENCE

129. The carrier may validly stipulate for entire relief from liability for all loss or damage that is not due to the negligence of the carrier or that of his agents or servants.

It is clear, from what has been said, that the carrier may by contract limit the insuring liability imposed on him by the common law. It is equally clear that the carrier cannot, even by express contract, relieve himself of all liability for loss or damage, regardless of the means by which it was caused. It is far from clear, however, just what these limitations are on the power of the carrier thus to diminish his responsibility. How far a sound public policy, considering the public nature of the carrier's employment, may permit the carrier to go in this respect, is a question which has caused the courts no end of trouble, and has given rise to many and conflicting doctrines.

There is substantial agreement, however, that there is no objection, on the score of public policy, to contracts which make the carrier liable for his negligence, or that of his agents or servants, but which afford the carrier complete exemption from liability for loss or damage due to any other causes.1 In other words, the

1 South & N. A. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; Id., 56 Ala. 368; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. Rep. 489; Little Rock, M. R. & T. Ry. Co. v. Talbot, 47 Ark. 97, 14 S. W. 471; Taylor v. Little Rock, M. R. & T. R. Co., 39 Ark. 148; Overland M. & E. Co. v. Carroll, 7 Colo. 43, 1 Pac. 682; Merchants' Dispatch & Transp. Co. v. Cornforth, 3 Colo. 280, 25 Am. Rep. 757; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Rainey, 19 Colo. 225, 34 Pac. 986; Camp v. Hartford & N. Y. Steamboat Co., 43 Conn. 333; Welch v. Boston & A. R. Co., 41 Conn. 333; Central R. R. v. Bryant, 73 Ga. 722, 726; Berry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 543; Flinn v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 1 Houst. (Del.) 469, 502; Boscowitz v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 Ill. 523, 34 Am. Rep. 191; Erie Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 239, 25 Am. Rep. 451; Rosenfeld v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co., 103 Ind. 121, 2 N. E. 344, 53 Am. Rep. 500; Bartlett v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 94 Ind. 281; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 719; Sprague v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 34 Kan. 347, 8 Pac. 465; St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Piper, 13 Kan. 505; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Brownlee, 14 Bush (Ky.) 590; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co v. Hedger, 9 Bush (Ky.) 645, 15 Am. Rep. 740; New Orleans Mut. Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co., 20 La. Ann. 302; Roberts v. Riley, 15 La. Ann. 103, 77 Am. Dec. 183; Little v. Boston & M. R. R., 66 Me. 239; Willis v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 62 Me. 488; McCoy v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 42 Md. 498; Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 328; Hoadley v. Northern Transportation Co., 115 Mass. 304, 15 Am. Rep. 106; Pemberton Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 104

carrier can by contract validly stipulate that his liability is to be measured, not in terms of insurance, but in terms of negligence. For the insuring liability which the law affixes to him as an extraordinary bailee, he can contractually substitute the liability

Mass. 144, 151; School District in Medfield v. Boston, H. & E. R. Co., 102 Mass. 552, 3 Am. Rep. 502; Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 117, 1 Am. Rep. 131; Squire v. New York Cent. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162; Feige v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 62 Mich. 1, 28 N. W. 685; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Mich. 538, overruled in Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Hale, 6 Mich. 243; Boehl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 191, 46 N. W. 333; Hull v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 510, 43 N. W. 391, 5 L. R. A. 587, 16 Am. St. Rep. 722; Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 396, 31 N. W. 519; Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss. 1003, 1011, 45 Am. Rep. 428; Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Abels, 60 Miss. 1017; New Orleans, St. L. & C. R. Co. v. Faler, 58 Miss. 911; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 4 S. W. 689, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721; Ball v. Wabasha, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 83 Mo. 574; Craycroft v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 18 Mo. App. 487; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Washburn, 5 Neb. 117, 121; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Witty, 32 Neb. 275, 49 N. W. 183, 29 Am. St. Rep. 436; Rand v. Merchants' Dispatch Transp. Co., 59 N. H. 363; Moses v. Boston & M. R. R., 24 N. H. 71, 55 Am. Dec. 222; Id., 32 N. H. 523, 64 Am. Dec. 381; Ashmore v. Pennsylvania Steam Towing & Transp. Co., 28 N. J. Law, 180; Phifer v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 89 N. C. 311, 45 Am. Rep. 687; Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 64 N. C. 235; Gaines v. Union Transp. & Ins. Co., 28 Ohio St. 418; U. S. Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Union Exp. Co. v. Graham, 26 Ohio St. 595; Armstrong v. United States Exp. Co., 159 Pa. 640, 28 Atl. 448; Merchants' D. T. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 397, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847; Coward v. East Tennessee V. & G. R. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Trawick, 68 Tex. 314, 4 S. W. 567, 2 Am. St. Rep. 494 (under statute); Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McGown, 65 Tex. 640; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 808; Mann v. Birchard, 40 Vt. 326, 94 Am. Dec. 398; Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 349; Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Grat. (Va.) 328; Wilson v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 21 Grat. (Va.) 654, 671; Brown v. Adams Exp. Co., 15 W. Va. 812; Maslin v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 14 W. Va., 180, 35 Am. Rep. 748; Abrams v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 58 N. W. 780, 41 Am. St. Rep. 55. And see Black v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 55 Wis. 319, 13 N. W. 244, 42 Am. Rep. 713; Thomas v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. (C. C.) 63 Fed. 200; New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 16 Wall. 318, 328, 21 L. Ed. 297; Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. Ed. 465; Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 788; Thomas v. Lancaster Mills, 71 Fed. 481, 19 C. C. A. 88. See, also, the following recent cases: Hix v. Eastern S. S. Co., 107 Me. 357, 78 Atl. 379; George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 189 Fed. 561, 110 C. C. A. 645; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Brownsville Livery & Live Stock Co., 123 Tenn. 298, 130 S. W. 788; Penn. Clothing Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 48 Pa. Super. Ct. 520; Russell v. Erie R. Co., 70 N. J. Law, 808, 59 Atl. 150, 67 L. R. A. 433, 1 Ann. Cas. 672; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Landers, 135 Ala. 504, 33 South. 482.