Armour Research Foundation v. Chicago, RI & PR Co.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1962
• Docket Number: No. 13404.,13404.
• Citation: 297 F.2d 176
• Parties: ARMOUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

297 F.2d 176 (1961)

ARMOUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13404.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

December 22, 1961.

Rehearing Denied February 1, 1962.

Timothy J. Murtaugh, Martin M. Nelson, Francis E. Sweet, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

E. L. Ryan, Jr., Chicago, Ill., O. L. Houts, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellee.

Before DUFFY, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, Armour Research Foundation of Illinois Institute of Technology, brought this action against defendant, Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, to recover damages to a shipment received by defendant for transportation in interstate commerce. Plaintiff alleges that on April 22, 1957, Southern Pacific Lines issued a uniform bill of lading on behalf of plaintiff for transportation from Inyokern, California, to Chicago, of a shipment described as: "1 Ea. Vehicle Motor Truck Freight Trailer Attached" and that defendant as connecting carrier delivered this shipment in a damaged condition. The defense was that the damage, if any, was caused by the plaintiff or its agents. Judgment was entered for defendant by the District Court after a non-jury trial. This appeal followed.

The vehicle in question was owned by Armour and employed for housing and transporting delicate electronic equipment which was used in making certain tests at the Naval Ordnance Test Station at China Lake, California. The exterior of the truck was rectangular in shape. It had a back door similar to an entrance door to a room and each side contained three panels in the shape of windows in addition to cable-entry portholes. The District Court found that the van of the truck was so unusual that it could be recognized as a special purpose truck.

On April 18, 1957, the Navy shipping supervisor at China Lake ordered a flat car from the Southern Pacific Lines preparatory to returning the vehicle to Armour in Chicago. Navy crews loaded and secured the padlocked vehicle on the flat car and transported it via Navy railroad to the Southern Pacific at Inyokern on April 22. A bill of lading was issued there by the agent of the Southern Pacific. Based on information supplied by Navy personnel, the agent listed only the truck and trailer on the bill. No mention was made of any equipment inside the truck. On April 23, the car was inspected by a member of the railroad's car department who reported that the blocking and tie cables used to secure the vehicle were "okay." The car was then released for movement. Subsequently, the car was transferred to the defendant's line at Tucumcari, New Mexico, and arrived at Chicago on April 30.

Neither the truck nor the trailer was damaged and the blocks and tie cables were in place with the exception of one tie cable which was still fastened to the rear axle but was not tight. When plaintiff unlocked the truck it discovered that some of the electronic equipment, however, had been damaged. Upon learning that the truck was not empty defendant rerated the shipment to reflect the higher freight rate applicable to the carrying of a truck loaded with sensitive and delicate equipment, to wit, electronic devices and cameras. This higher rate was paid by plaintiff.

Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11), codifies the common law rule that a common carrier is an insurer of the goods transported by it unless it is affirmatively shown that "the damage was occasioned by the shipper, acts of God, the public enemy, public authority, or the inherent vice or nature of the commodity." Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 350 U.S. 162, 76 S.Ct. 244, 247, 100 L.Ed. 173.

The District Court found that the shipment was "misdescribed in that the bill of lading under which the shipment was being transported failed accurately to describe the shipment since it did not disclose to the carrier...