484 F.2d 349 (1st Cir. 1973), 73-1195, Polaroid Corp. v. Schuster's Exp., Inc.
|Citation:||484 F.2d 349|
|Party Name:||POLAROID CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHUSTER'S EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||September 17, 1973|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
Submitted on briefs Aug. 2, 1973.
Charles E. Holly and Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding, Boston, Mass., on brief for appellant.
Edwin R. Trafton, and Robert T. Oken, Boston, Mass., on brief for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
Polaroid Corporation has brought this action against Schuster's Express, Inc., a common carrier, under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11) 1 claiming damages arising from the hijacking of a shipment of photographic equipment entrusted to the defendant at Needham Heights, Massachusetts, on October 6, 1969, for delivery to a Polaroid warehouse at Paramus, New Jersey on October 7, 1969. Defendant appeals the granting of summary judgment on the issue of damages and the trial court's finding that Polaroid Corporation was entitled to its dealer price, rather than merely its cost of manufacturing the lost equipment. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Consideration of the summary judgment issue requires a somewhat detailed description of the controversy's procedural development. Plaintiff filed a claim for damages, totaling $134,490.95; this figure represents the dealer price, in case quantity, uniformly charged to all dealers purchasing from Polaroid. Following the defendant's response to plaintiff's request for admissions, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the question of liability, pursuant to F. R.Civ.P. 56, and requested the court to ascertain what material facts on the damage issue were controverted and to order a hearing for assessment of damages. The court, faced with the defendant's admitted liability for "full actual cost", found the only disputed issue to be the measure of damages.
Plaintiff supported its claim for $134,490.95 by seven evidentiary affidavits, sworn to by its Group Controller for Operations. They itemized the dealer price value of each item for the month in which the goods were hijacked and divided the total price into cost and profit components. Defendant's reply brief contended that plaintiff was not entitled to the dealer price and questioned the accuracy of the cost component figure. It did not claim that the dealer prices were inaccurate nor that they did not represent the market value of the hijacked goods at...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP