Brown v. Cunard S.S. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1888
• Citation: 147 Mass. 58,16 N.E. 717
• Parties: BROWN v. CUNARD S.S. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

147 Mass. 58

16 N.E. 717

BROWN v. CUNARD S.S. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 4, 1888

COUNSEL

Frederic Dodge, for plaintiff.

The defendants claim that they are not bound to pay the plaintiff the $151.78, the depreciation in the market value of the goods, caused by the damage suffered, because their bill of lading contains the clause, "And in event of loss or damage for which the ship is responsible, the liability shall not exceed the invoice or declared value of the goods for the U.S. customs duty." The report finds that this sum is considerably less than the invoice value, and plaintiff claims that this finding settles the matter, and is a finding that the liability of the ship is within the limit fixed by the bill of lading. It is believed that the only cases where limitation of liability to invoice value has been so construed are The Lydian Monarch, 23 F. 298; Pearse v Steam-Ship Co., 24 F. 285. The plaintiff submits that these decisions ought not to be followed, because the rule of goods delivered damaged is well settled to be the depreciation in market value at the place of delivery. It is conceded that this is the general mode of computing damages in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. The Lydian Monarch, supra, 300. Clauses limiting liability ought to be strictly construed against the carrier, and ought not therefore, to be allowed to abrogate a well-settled rule of damages, unless the expressed intention admits of no mistake. Lawson, Cont. § 150, p. 198; Carv.Carr. by Sea, § 77, p. 87. The cause of this damage has been found to be the defendant's own fault and negligence in failing to have their vessels fit to carry the goods. Under these circumstances they are liable for the damages without regard to excepting clauses in the bill of lading. Tattersall v Steam-Ship Co., 12 Q.B.Div. 297; Unnevehr v. The Hindoo, 1 Fed.Rep. 627; The Brantford City, 29 F. 373.

George Putnam and Thomas Russell, for defendant.

A carrier of goods may, by stipulation in the bill of lading, limit the amount of his liability for damage to goods intrusted to him for transportation, even though such damage may be caused by the negligence of himself or his servants and agents, provided that such limitation is just and reasonable. Squire v. Railroad Co., 98 Mass. 239; Graves v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 33; Hart v. Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 S.Ct. 151. A stipulation limiting the amount for which the carrier will be liable, in case of loss or damage to goods intrusted to his care, to the invoice value of such goods, is just and reasonable, and is valid as a reasonable regulation providing a rule of damages in case of loss, which it is competent for the parties to adopt, and convenient and politic in practice for the speedy settlement of losses and the suppression of litigation. The Hadji, 18 F. 459; The Lydian Monarch, 23 F. 298; Pearse v. Steam-Ship Co., 24 F. 285; The Aline, 25 F. 562. In making this agreement, the parties have in effect agreed upon the value of the goods, for the purpose of adjusting any loss that might arise. The Scotland, 105 U.S. 24; The City of New York, 23, F. 616; The Vaughan, 14 Wall. 258; Murray v. Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64; The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327; The Amiable Naney, 3 Wheat. 546. If the goods as delivered are worth the invoice value, then by this rule the owners thereof have suffered no damage for which the ship is liable. If the goods are not worth the invoice value, then the damages for which the ship is liable are the difference between their present value and the invoice value. The limitation of the amount of liability applies to all losses, however caused. The case of Tattersall v. Steam-Ship Co., 12 Q.B.Div. 297, does not apply here. The plaintiff having shown no damage, judgment should be for the defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

The plaintiff's goods were damaged on the defendant's vessel, through its fault, to the amount of $151.78, in their market value in Boston, the port of destination, but it did not appear that their market value, as damaged, was less than the invoice value of the sound goods, with the cost of importation added. The bill of lading limits the defendant's liability to the invoice value. See Graves v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 33; Hill v Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 284, 10 N.E. 836. The only question which we shall consider is whether the language used exempts the defendant from all liability upon these facts. The defendant relies upon some decisions to the effect that a provision that the ship owner will not be liable for more than the invoice value of the goods is to be construed as limiting the liability in case of partial loss to the...