Brannon v. Smith Dray Line & Storage Company, 71-1689.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1689.,71-1689. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 260 |
| Parties | Elizabeth BRANNON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SMITH DRAY LINE & STORAGE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Louis I. Dailey, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellant; James O. Garner, Memphis, Tenn., on brief; Garner & Ashford, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel.
Boyd L. Rhodes, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., on brief, for plaintiff-appellee; Heiskell, Donelson, Adams, Williams & Wall, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a $7,000 judgment entered after the non-jury trial of an action by a shipper against a motor vehicle common carrier. The shipper sought damages for the destruction by fire of her household goods that were being transported by defendant from Greenville, South Carolina, to Memphis, Tennessee.
On appeal, the carrier raises the following issues. First, it contends that the shipper was bound by the limitation of value typed into the bill of lading that the shipper signed, which represented the agreement reached by the parties based upon a written estimate the carrier asserts its agent prepared and gave to the shipper two weeks before the move. Second, it contends that the proof-of-loss statement signed by the shipper after the destruction of the goods either released appellant from any liability above that contained in the bill of lading or constituted an accord and satisfaction that had the same effect. Third, it argues that appellee's evidence of the value of the goods was insufficient to support the court's determination of damages.
In a comprehensive memorandum, the district judge made findings of fact in which he credited the shipper's testimony that she had not been given a copy of the written cost estimate or a copy of the Notice to Shippers of Household Goods required by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be furnished to all prospective shippers of household goods in interstate commerce. He also credited her testimony that appellant's agent did not adequately advise her concerning her opportunity to choose a valuation for her goods that would represent a limitation on the carrier's liability, and that the agent had assured her that the rate he suggested would afford her sufficient insurance coverage, which she understood to be supplemental protection to the carrier's responsibility for the entire loss. The district judge further credited her testimony that defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc.
...claimed liability limitation on the bill of lading in violation of 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1307.201(c). They cite Brannon v. Smith Dray Line & Storage Co., Inc., 456 F.2d 260 (6th Cir.1972), to support their argument. The regulation states (c) Statement on bills of lading. The bill of lading ... sha......
-
Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton
...agent as to available coverage, and was prevented from exercising her right to choose adequate coverage. In Brannon v. Smith Dray Line & Storage Co., 456 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1972), it was held that a shipper is not bound by the valuation in a Bill of Lading when not adequately advised concer......
-
Trans-American Van Service, Inc. v. Shirzad
...of the Interstate Commerce Act on limitation of liability, as construed by the above cited cases. See also Brannon v. Smith Dray Line & Storage Company, 456 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1972); Bauer v. Jackson, 15 Cal.App.3d 358, 93 Cal.Rptr. 43 There is yet a third reason to hold Trans-American liab......
-
Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. McKnab
...have been considered and we find competent, substantial evidence to support the plaintiff's position. Brannon v. Smith Dray Line & Storage Company, 6th Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 260. The remaining point relates to the value of the destroyed personal goods. The plaintiff testified as to the origin......