Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

Decision Date23 July 1981
Docket NumberNo. 1-1080A301,1-1080A301
Citation423 N.E.2d 675
PartiesCENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., Appellant (Defendant below), v. GREAT DANE TRAILERS, INC., Appellee (Plaintiff below) and Chrysler Corporation, Appellee (Defendant below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

John J. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas & Pease, Brazil, for appellant.

William G. Brown, Brazil, for Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

David W. Sullivan, Cox, Zwerner, Gambill & Sullivan, Terre Haute, for Chrysler Corp.

CHIPMAN, Judge.

Central Transport Inc. is appealing an adverse judgment for damages in a Clay Circuit Court bench trial. Great Dane Trailers Inc. sued Central Transport for the value of its trailer which Central Transport had agreed to transport on a "free load" basis from Indianapolis to Chicago.

Central Transport, in turn, sued Chrysler Corporation as a third-party defendant because the trailer disappeared while parked on a Chrysler parking lot. Trial was to the court, which found Central Transport liable to Great Dane and Chrysler not liable to Central Transport. The court made no special findings of fact nor conclusions of law.

In challenging the trial court's decisions, Central Transport contends the decisions were contrary to law and the evidence.

We disagree and accordingly affirm the trial court.

DISCUSSION

Whether the decision of the trial court was contrary to law or contrary to the evidence raises substantially similar questions of law. When the alleged error is that the decision was contrary to law, we will reverse only if the evidence is without conflict and leads to only one conclusion, but the trial court has reached the opposite conclusion. Hinds v. McNair, (1955) 235 Ind. 34, 129 N.E.2d 553; Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp., (1968) 142 Ind.App. 319, 234 N.E.2d 655. When the error alleged is that the decision was contrary to the evidence we will reverse only if the trial court's decision is not supported by any substantial and probative evidence. Harris Builders Inc. v. Kopp, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 354, 311 N.E.2d 841.

Accordingly, if we find the trial court's decision can be sustained under the facts in the record most favorable to the prevailing party, on any legal theory, we will affirm. Hurt v. Polak, (1979) Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 1051; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Shuman, (1977) Ind.App., 370 N.E.2d 941.

The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff Great Dane Trailers and the defendant Chrylser Corporation reveals the following: Great Dane Trailers manufactured a 42-foot trailer for Poole Truck Lines of Houston, Texas. The trailer was to be shipped to Houston via various commercial motor carriers who would agree to deliver the trailer at no charge in exchange for the right to use it to haul freight en route. This method of delivery is known as "free loading" and works to the mutual benefit of the shipper and the carrier. The shipper saves the cost of transportation, which in turn reduces the charges he will pass on to the buyer. The carrier gets free use of the trailer and is able to temporarily add more trailers to its system at no expense of capital.

Great Dane Trailers employed National Transportation Co. of Lubbock, Texas, to make the free-loading arrangements. National Transportation, in turn, arranged by phone for Central Transportation to move the trailer from Indianapolis to Chicago and for Arkansas Best Freight to move it from Chicago to Houston. Great Dane Trailers shipped th trailer to Indianapolis on a regular fee basis with Underwood Truck Lines, a trucking company working exclusively for Great Dane Trailers.

Upon delivery to Central Transport's Indianapolis terminal, an employee of Central Transport signed a bill of lading acknowledging receipt of the trailer and indicating the destination, delivering carriers and consignee.

Central Transport loaded the trailer with goods to be shipped to Chrysler Corporation at Hamtramck, Michigan, and delivered the trailer and goods to Chrysler on December 7, 1976. Chrysler unloaded the trailer, notified Central Transport on December 8 of its immediate availability and parked it in a nearby lot with other trailers to be picked up. Although the trailer was parked on a fenced and guarded lot, no special security was provided nor were truckers required to show Chrysler any identification or authorization to pick up an empty trailer.

Central Transport attempted to pick up the trailer two days later but could not find it. A second attempt was made on December 13. Central Transport continued its efforts to find the trailer but waited several weeks before advising Chrysler and National Transportation of the loss. Apparently Great Dane Trailers did not learn of the loss for several months. FBI and local police were notified, although the record does not indicate when.

I. CENTRAL TRANSPORT'S LIABILITY

Central Transport contends, in effect, that a reading of the evidence most favorable to Great Dane Trailers provides no basis for a trial court to find liability. Central Transport's brief ignores the bill of lading, which was offered at trial by Great Dane Trailers to show a contractual relationship casting Central Transport into its customary role of a common carrier. The bill of lading bears what appears to be the signatures of Joseph Prichard of Great Dane Trailers and R. D. Bryant of Central Transport. Testimony that Bryant's name was difficult to read was admitted, but Bryant was not called to testify nor was Prichard. The authenticity of the document was not disputed nor was Bryant's authority to sign such a document. Since a 42-foot trailer being shipped in interstate commerce constitutes "goods" in Indiana, Ind.Code 26-1-7-102(1)(f), 1 and a bill of lading is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods, there is evidence in the record of a contract of carriage between Central Transport and Great Dane Trailers.

In Indiana, bills of lading are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code which charges a carrier to care for the goods in the manner of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances. Ind.Code 26-1-7-309. The Code also recognizes a carrier at common law to be an insuror of the goods except for losses caused by an act of God, public enemy or an inherent defect in the goods themselves or unless it expressly contracts to limit liability to only those losses caused by negligence. Id.

Notwithstanding the bill of lading, Central Transport denies it was a carrier for Great Dane's trailer but admits it was a bailee. The distinction is critical only if no probative evidence exists to show negligence on the part of Central Transport. Because we find the evidence could support a trial court finding of negligence we will not attempt to examine whatever common law liability as an insuror may exist under the bill of lading.

In Indiana, there are no degrees of care nor degrees of negligence. Stayton v. Funkhouser, (1970) 148 Ind.App. 75, 263 N.E.2d 764. Negligence imports only one standard of care: that which ordinary prudent persons would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., (1953) 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280, rehearing denied, 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 713. However, Central Transport cites General Grain, Inc. v. International Harvester Co., (1968) 142 Ind.App. 12, 232 N.E.2d 616 for the proposition that ordinary bailees may meet a standard of care lower than professional bailees. That is not the case. General Grain holds only that professional bailees, like a common carrier, may not contract out of negligence. Professional bailees have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 18 Noviembre 1991
    ...under the circumstances. See Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 713 (1953); Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 423 N.E.2d 675, 678 (Ind.App.1981); P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, 178 Ind.App. 457, 383 N.E.2d 357 (1978). The court agrees with the plai......
  • Eifler v. Shurgard Capital Management Corp.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 22 Noviembre 1993
    ...predetermined conditions upon bailors whose bargaining power lacks parity with such bailees"); Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 423 N.E.2d 675, 678 (Ind.App.1981); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B, comment g (1965); Annot., Liability for Loss Of Or Damage To Automob......
  • Alford v. E. Ohio Gas Co.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 12 Mayo 2014
    ...person under the circumstances. See Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 713 (1953);Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 423 N.E.2d 675, 678 (Ind.App.1981); P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, 178 Ind.App. 457, 383 N.E.2d 357 (1978). The court agrees with th......
  • Indiana Ins. Co. v. Ivetich, 3-682A129
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 9 Febrero 1983
    ...only when he has failed to act with ordinary care and diligence. Conner v. Winton (1856), 8 Ind. 315; Central Transport, Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers (1981), Ind.App., 423 N.E.2d 675; Hacker v. Dan Young Chevrolet, Inc. (1973), 159 Ind.App. 28, 304 N.E.2d 552. Whether the bailee exercised or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Revisiting Rhode Island v. Innis: Offering a New Interpretation of the Interrogation Test
    • United States
    • Creighton University Creighton Law Review No. 33, 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...Huber, CREIGHTON L. REV. at 138-39. 137. PROSSER, supra note 131, § 34. 138. See Central Transp., Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 423 N.E.2d 675, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (using an ordinary, prudent person test). 139. See KEETON ET AL., supra note 133 § 32, at 185; see also Lawrence Boch......
  • Revisiting Rhode Island v. Innis: Offering a New Interpretation of the Interrogation Test
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 33, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...Huber, CREIGHTON L. REV. at 138-39. 137. PROSSER, supra note 131, § 34. 138. See Central Transp., Inc. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 423 N.E.2d 675, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (using an ordinary, prudent person test). 139. See KEETON ET AL., supra note 133 § 32, at 185; see also Lawrence Boch......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT