Bergstrom v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1907
• Citation: 111 N.W. 818,134 Iowa 223
• Parties: W. BERGSTROM v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

111 N.W. 818

134 Iowa 223

W. BERGSTROM v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 8, 1907

Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON. B. H. MILLER, Judge.

ACTION for value of a trunk checked as baggage over defendant's railway and lost. Verdict was returned for about one-tenth of the damages claimed, and judgment entered thereon. The defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Carroll Wright, J. L. Parrish, and Grimm & Trewin, for appellant.

Smith & Smith, for appellee.

OPINION

LADD J.

The plaintiff purchased a ticket over defendant's railroad from Cedar Rapids to St. Paul, Minn., and procured two trunks to be checked as baggage, paying for excess weight seventy cents. One of these trunks, with its contents, was lost, and recovery for the value thereof is sought in this action. Defendant's liability for the contents of the trunk constituting plaintiff's personal baggage is conceded. But, aside from such personal belongings as travelers usually carry for their use, comfort, and convenience in making such a journey, this trunk seems to have contained a peculiar assortment of valuables, including a so-called "oriental seal" about four thousand years old and an art lecture and embroidery of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, representing five saints or apostles each of which articles was thought by the owner to be worth $ 1,000 and all of the estimated value of $ 3,708.50.

The evidence was in conflict as to whether defendant's baggage master was advised that articles other than personal baggage were in the trunk when it was checked, and the sole question presented for our decision is whether, conceding that he was so informed, the company is bound by his act in receiving and checking the same as personal baggage, or, as put by appellant: Does notice to a baggage agent of a common carrier that a trunk or other receptacle containing the passenger's baggage also contains items not baggage bind the carrier and make it liable for the value of such items not baggage, lost in transit, where the authority of such agent is restricted to that of a baggage agent? Note, the inquiry is not whether the agent had authority to decide what was personal baggage, but, conceding that the articles were not such, could he bind the company by treating them as such in receiving them for transportation. It was held in Weber v. Railway, 113 Iowa 188, that the carrier will not be held liable in such a case where the passenger knows the agent is prohibited by the company from receiving the articles and checking them for shipment as baggage. While plaintiff knew notice to the company that articles other than personal baggage were in the trunk was essential to render defendant liable therefor in event of loss, see McElroy v. Railway, 133 Iowa 544, he does not appear to have been advised of any limitation on the agent's authority, or that defendant's rules prohibited the carriage of other than personal baggage on passenger trains. For all that appears, he might have supposed that articles other than personal baggage would be received in connection therewith, or that the matter of determining whether this would be done was left with the baggageman. We are of the opinion that he had the right to suppose the baggage agent was the proper representative of the company to determine in what manner the trunk should be shipped.

The company as a common carrier was bound to...