Cutten v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., Civ. No. 71-2996.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 71-2996. |
| Citation | 349 F. Supp. 907 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Mrs. R. Cattier CUTTEN, also known as Mrs. Ruth L. Cutten, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., a corporation and Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage Company, Inc., a corporation, Defendants. |
Macdonald, Halsted & Laybourne and Robert H. Edwards, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Spray, Gould & Bowers and Phillip Hosp, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Allied Van Lines, Inc.
Groff, Dunne, Shallcross & Kane and Mark C. Kane, for defendant Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage Co., Inc.
DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court having considered the evidence, including the stipulations and admissions of the parties, and arguments of counsel finds the facts and states its conclusions of law as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. During the year 1970 plaintiff was, and at all times since has been, a citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
2. Defendant Allied Van Lines, Inc. (Allied Van Lines) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and at all times mentioned herein has maintained its
principal place of business in Cook County, State of Illinois.
3. Defendant Morgan and Brother Manhattan Storage Company, Inc. (Morgan-Manhattan) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and at all times mentioned herein has maintained its principal place of business in New York County, State of New York.
4. During the year 1970 Allied Van Lines was engaged in the business of interstate common motor carrier in the States of New York and California and elsewhere in the United States.
5. During the year 1970 Morgan-Manhattan held itself out to the general public, including plaintiff, as being engaged in the transportation by motor vehicle interstate of property for compensation.
6. During August of 1966 Morgan-Manhattan packed all of plaintiff's household goods (plaintiff's household goods) located at plaintiff's residence on Park Avenue in New York City, and stored them in its New York City Warehouse.
7. During the period between August 1966 and November 23, 1970, Morgan-Manhattan held in its possession, custody and control plaintiff's household goods and did not damage or lose any item thereof.
8. During October 1970 plaintiff, who was in California, gave an order by telephone to Morgan-Manhattan to ship all of plaintiff's household goods (except a piano) to her at her residence in California. On November 17, 1970, when it acknowledged payment of storage and packing charges, Morgan-Manhattan accepted plaintiff's order to transport plaintiff's household goods from the State of New York to the State of California.
9. On November 23, 1970, Morgan-Manhattan removed plaintiff's household goods from the rooms in the warehouse where they were stored and loaded them into Van 3309A which was owned by Morgan-Manhattan.
10. At all times during November and December of 1970, Frank Schramel was a salaried employee of Morgan-Manhattan and his activities were subject to the supervision, direction and control of Morgan-Manhattan including loading into Van 3309A plaintiff's household goods and transporting interstate such household goods to their destination in California.
11. During 1970 Schramel also acted as driver for Allied Van Lines on long haul interstate transportation by motor carrier pursuant to regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Schramel received compensation based on a percentage of the revenues earned from each such interstate transportation which compensation was paid to him by Morgan-Manhattan.
12. On November 23, 1970, after plaintiff's household goods were loaded by Morgan-Manhattan into Van 3309A, Morgan-Manhattan issued bill of lading and freight bill No. 92961 () covering the transportation of plaintiff's household goods from Morgan-Manhattan's warehouse in New York City to plaintiff's residence in Beverly Hills, California. Plaintiff is the lawful holder of bill of lading. The bill of lading was issued by Morgan-Manhattan as issuing agent for Allied Van Lines in accordance with a long established contractual arrangement whereby Morgan-Manhattan acted as agent for Allied Van Lines in the shipment of household goods. An employee of Morgan-Manhattan signed the bill of lading as the "shipper" and released the shipment of plaintiff's household goods to a value not exceeding $30,000.
13. On November 23, 1970, an employee of Morgan-Manhattan checked out plaintiff's household goods and made out a delivery receipt dated November 23, 1970, which Schramel signed. The delivery receipt contained an inscription reading . Schramel wrote a seven page "Household Goods Descriptive Inventory" of plaintiff's household goods upon which appear the same numbers, descriptions of goods and symbols as to condition at origin which appear on the delivery receipt. Schramel wrote and signed an eighth page entitled "Drivers Exception Sheet" on which he noted the condition at origin of certain numbered items. The Household Goods Descriptive Inventory including the page entitled Drivers Exception Sheet bearing the following explanation of the symbols: "The omission of these symbols indicates good condition except for normal wear" were attached to the bill of lading.
14. On November 23, 1970, Morgan-Manhattan first loaded into Van 3309A plaintiff's household goods which required a space of 2500 cubic feet and which were secured by means of ropes and straps with the lighter items being stacked on top of the heavier items. Thereafter Morgan-Manhattan loaded into Van 3309A five separate shipments of household goods owned by other persons who resided in New York City and various cities in the State of New Jersey which shipments were to be transported to various destinations in California. About December 3, 1970 Van 3309A arrived in California. On December 4, 1970 plaintiff's household goods were delivered to her residence in Beverly Hills, California. Prior to such delivery the other five shipments were delivered to their destinations in California. Plaintiff paid all charges for transportation mileage and for the valuation of $30,000 on plaintiff's household goods.
15. In the transportation of plaintiff's household goods from the place of loading in the State of New York to their destination in the State of California in Van 3309A Morgan-Manhattan and Allied Van Lines acted individually and jointly as interstate common motor carriers. Schramel was the driver of Van 3309A during such transportation.
16. On December 4, 1970 Morgan-Manhattan and Allied Van Lines delivered to plaintiff at her residence in California certain items of plaintiff's household goods in damaged condition (damaged items) and failed to deliver other items thereof (lost items). At the time the damaged items and the lost items were loaded into Van 3309A on November 23, 1970 they were sound and in good condition. No Exception Symbol appears in the Household Goods Descriptive Inventory or in the Driver's Exception Sheet in connection with any of the damaged items or any of the lost items.
17. The amount of damages sustained by plaintiff, that is, the decrease in the fair market value of the damaged items, is as follows:
(a) Antique French Louis XV Game
Table. $ 850
(b) Antique Louis XVI sofa upholstered
in red silk with cushions, 6' 6"
long. $ 462
(c) Antique massive round Waterford cutglass
centerpiece. $ 425
(d) Four French Limoges place plates
gold shell rims, hand painted in
colors. $ 200
(e) Russian colored enamel on copper
framed plaque, "St. George Slaying
the Dragon". $ 250
(f) Pair Chinese pale green jade oval
table screens. $ 600
(g) Pair of reticulated and carved teakwood
fitted stands for above. $ 50
(h) Pair of antique Adams carved and
green lacquer console tables, Rams'
heads on two forelegs, terminating
in hoof feet; slab marble tops with
colored inlays. $2,500
(i) Louis XV style inlaid Kingwood and
Tulipwood writing table. $2,500
(j) Pair of antique French Provincial
carved fruitwood side chairs with
scrolled legs, upholstered in red
velvet. $1,250
(k) Pair of antique Chinese Porcelain
Ewers; On the shoulders a crawling
lizard. $2,000
(l) Louis XVI fruitwood sofa, covered in
red silk velvet with braid, down-filled
seat cushion and two roll
bolsters. $ 500
(m) Regency Inlaid Kingwood Serpentine
Front Commode, mounted in bronze
dore, French Rouge royale marble
top with serpentine front over a
conforming encasement with two short
and two long drawers. $2,500
(n) Four French farmstyle antique side
chairs, in fruitwood, upholstered in
gold velvet. $1,500
18. The amount of damages sustained by plaintiff as the result of certain items having been lost, that is, the fair market value of the lost items, is as follows:
(o) Table lamp: Dore mounted, etched
crystal baluster shaft on round base. $ 350
(p) Twelve Old English floral etched and
cut-glass champagne glasses. $ 480
(q) Four Hawkes red wine glasses. $ 120
(r) Old pictorial polychromed ceramic
and ivory table lamp; baluster shaft
on domicular base. $ 500
(s) Eight Limoges acid etched and gold
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...469, 481, 24 Cal.Rptr. 5; In re Consol. Pretrial Proceedings in Air West (1977) 436 F.Supp. 1281, 1286; Cutten v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. (1972) 349 F.Supp. 907, 912-913, aff'd (9th Cir.1975) 514 F.2d The Board's authority to make a back-pay order and, in turn, to order the payment of intere......
-
J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO)
...469, 481, 24 Cal.Rptr. 5; In re Consol. Pretrial Proceedings in Air West (1977) 436 F.Supp. 1281, 1286; Cutten v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. (1972) 349 F.Supp. 907, 912-913, aff'd 514 F.2d 1196 [9th The Board's authority to make a back-pay order and, in turn, to order the payment of interest on......
-
David R. Webb Co., Inc. v. M/V HENRIQUE LEAL
...San Giorgio I v. Rheinstrom Bros. Co., 294 U.S. 494, 496-97, 55 S.Ct. 483, 484, 79 L.Ed. 1016 (1935). See also Cutten v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 349 F.Supp. 907 (C.D.Ca.1972), aff'd, 514 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir.1975). The parties in this case have done precisely what the Supreme Court describes ......
-
Hiles v. Progressive Relocation Sys.
... ... to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h) on November 9, 2020. (Docs. 11, 11-1) ... to be moved by Progressive Relocation Systems Inc. from ... Plaintiffs' residence in ... received.” Cutten v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., ... 349 F.Supp ... ...