BA Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 14448.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 14448.,14448. |
| Citation | 295 F.2d 627 |
| Parties | B. A. WALTERMAN COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
David W. Goldman, Cincinnati, Ohio, (Robert P. Goldman, Paxton & Seasongood, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
John W. Hudson, Cincinnati, Ohio, (Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and WEICK, Circuit Judges.
The action in the District Court was brought by a consignee against the delivering carrier to recover damages to a shipment of goods. The facts were stipulated. The District Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that no written claim had been filed by plaintiff with the carrier within nine months after delivery of the shipment as provided by the bill of lading.
In this Court, it is contended that the carrier had actual notice of the damage, waived the filing of a written claim and was estopped from asserting this defense.
Verbal notice was given by the plaintiff to the delivering carrier that the goods had been damaged in transit within two days after arrival at destination. The carrier's agent made an inspection of the damage within said time and a written report thereof, copies of which were sent to plaintiff and the initial carrier. The damaged goods were then shipped to the consignor for repairs without charge for freight in accordance with Freight Claim Rule 108(b) of the Association of American Railroads, which rule had been approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The bill of lading issued for the return of the goods to the shipper recited that the goods were The written claim was not filed by plaintiff with the carrier until about fifteen (15) months after delivery.
The bill of lading provided that claim must be filed in writing with the carrier within nine months after the delivery of the goods as a condition precedent to recovery. Compliance with this provision is mandatory under federal law which governs this case. Delphi Frosted Foods Corp. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 6 Cir., 188 F.2d 343. A verbal claim is not sufficient. Starbird, etc. v. St. Louis, etc., Railway Co., 243 U.S. 592, 593, 37 S.Ct. 462, 61 L.Ed. 917; Southern Pacific Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Transport Indem. Co.
...to the bringing of an action under the bill of lading and are not subject to waiver or estoppel. B.A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 295 F.2d 627, 628 (6th Cir.1961) (per curiam). Thus, unlike a typical statute of limitations defense, the nine month filing requirement of the Un......
-
Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co.
...have substantially complied with the requirements of section 2(b). We are not unmindful of our decision in B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania RR, 295 F.2d 627 (1961), where we held that compliance with the notice requirement in the bill of lading was mandatory and could not be satisfied ei......
-
Johnson & Dealaman, Inc. v. Wm. F. Hegarty, Inc.
...248 U.S. 446, 39 S.Ct. 139, 63 L.Ed. 350 (1919); St. Louis, Iron Mt. & So. Ry. Co. v. Starbird, above; B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 295 F.2d 627 (6 Cir.1961); East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. United States, above, 239 F.2d 417 (5 Cir.1956); Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackie,......
-
Polaroid Corp. v. Hermann Forwarding Co.
...See, e. g., Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 51 S.Ct. 453, 75 L.Ed. 983 (1931); B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pa. R.R. Co., 295 F.2d 627, 628 (6th Cir. 1961) (per curiam); H. Rouw Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 260 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex.Civ.App.1953).16 Exhibit JB-47, App. at 125a.1......