Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 22751
| Decision Date | 10 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 22751,22751 |
| Citation | 28 Colo.App. 85,470 P.2d 926 |
| Parties | ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. Frank SMITH and Gail Smith, Defendants in Error. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Dayton Denious, William P. Denious, Robert J. Kapelke, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Louis F. Pell, Denver, for defendants in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under the authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff in error was defendant below and shall be referred to in this opinion as 'defendant's or as 'Allied.' The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, shall be designated herein as 'plaintiffs' or by name.
The defendant is an interstate carrier of household goods operating under a tariff which is filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The tariff provides in part that 'articles of peculiarly inherent or extraordinary value' will not be accepted for shipment. It specifies that: 'Should such articles come into the possession of the carrier without its knowledge, responsibility for safe delivery will not be assumed.' The tariff also states 'Each shipping piece or package and contents thereof shall constitute one article.'
In December of 1964, plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant whereby the defendant undertook to transport the plaintiffs' household goods from Ogden, Utah to Littleton, Colorado. The contract of carriage was embodied in a standard household goods bill of lading, as required by the defendant's tariff. The bill of lading carried on its face a noticeable requirement that the shipper make a declaration of extraordinary valued articles. It further excluded the carrier from liability for any such articles not listed. The plaintiffs did not list any articles on the bill of lading. They did declare the value of the entire shipment to be $8,000.00. Shortly after the goods were delivered in Littleton, Colorado, the plaintiffs claimed that a carton containing 'heirloom' silver and other items was missing and brought the action against the defendant to recover the value thereof. At trial Mrs. Smith testified that the value of the contents of the missing carton totaled $4,969.13. The remainder of the Smiths' household goods was appraised at $1,014.00. Other evidence disclosed that there were some 218 packages, boxes, and pieces in the shipment. The trial court found from Mrs. Smith's testimony the value of the items in the missing carton to be $4,969.13. It also ruled that the items of 'silver' were household goods as defined by Section 1, Item 40 of defendant's tariff and that there was no requirement under the tariff or bill of lading that the silver be listed as an item of extraordinary value. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,696.13 for the missing carton and $60.17 for damage to furniture and costs.
Defendant asserts as its first ground for reversal that the trial court erred in finding that the carton of silverware did not fall within the scope of the provisions in the tariff and bill of lading which excluded the carrier from liability for its loss. In this case, such argument is sound, and it will be unnecessary to consider the other grounds urged for reversal.
We concur in the trial court's finding that as a general rule silverware and silverplate, having as their primary and principal purpose usage within a home, constitute 'household goods.' We are nonetheless of the opinion that in this case the carton containing the silver was an 'article of extraordinary value.' The record discloses that some 218 articles were shipped; the one carton containing the silver was valued by the plaintiffs at $4,969.13; and all of the remainder of their household goods was appraised at $1,014.00. Two hundred seventeen of the articles, therefore, had an average value of less than $5.00, whereas the missing carton was valued at almost $5,000.00, or one thousand times the average value of the other articles. The reasoning of the trial court that: 'Whether all of the silver items were contained in one carton or whether distributed among 218 cartons * * * doesn't affect the liability of the carrier * * *' overlooks the provision of the tariff to the effect that each shipping piece or package and the contents thereof shall constitute one article. The trial court's finding that 'none of the items of silver had a value of more than $300.00' is not applicable here since all the items of silver were contained in one carton.
We, therefore, rule under the circumstances of this case that the carton of silverware shipped by the plaintiffs was an article of 'peculiarly inherent or extraordinary value' within the meaning of the provisions contained within the bill of lading and Allied's tariff. Harring v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co., 236 Ala. 618, 184 So. 180 (1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 644, 59 S.Ct. 583, 83 L.Ed. 1044 (1939).
The parties at the time of trial and in submitting their initial briefs on appeal apparently assumed that if the carton of silverware was an item of extraordinary value and as such was not acceptable by Allied for shipment, it would necessarily follow that Allied would be relieved from any liability for the loss of the silverware by reason of the provisions contained in the bill of lading and in Allied's tariff. We do not feel that the issue is that confined, nor that we can limit our examination of the question by such presumption where an interstate common carrier is involved.
Since the enactment of the so-called 'Carmack Am...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. M.L.G. Corp.
...contract may agree to exclude certain risks, unless the provisions limiting coverage violate public policy); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 28 Colo.App. 85, 470 P.2d 926 (1970) (the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act codified the common law rules of carrier liability; any co......
-
Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. I. C. C.
...Hecker Products Corp. v. Transamerica Freight Lines, Inc. (296 Mich. 381), 296 N.W. 297 (Mich.1941); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith (28 Colo.App. 85), 470 P.2d 926, (Colo.App.1970). A contrary result may have been reached if some disclosure had been made of the identity of these goods. Tho......
-
Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. v. Resort Graphics, Inc.
...it covers. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 L.Ed.2d 194 (1964); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 28 Colo.App. 85, 470 P.2d 926 (1970). Prior to shipping goods in interstate commerce, a common carrier must issue a bill of lading or receipt for the pro......
-
Semi Metals, Inc. v. Pinter Bros.
...is another exception to the rule that permits the carrier to limit its liability. This was enunciated in Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 28 Colo.App. 85, 470 P.2d 926 (1970), as the 'extraordinary value' exception. In light of the experts' testimony, defendants do not fall within the corne......