Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company

• Decision Date: 03 October 1913
• Docket Number: 18,132 - (127)
• Citation: 143 N.W. 249,123 Minn. 87
• Parties: FRANK M. FORD v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

143 N.W. 249

123 Minn. 87

FRANK M. FORD v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 18,132 - (127)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 3, 1913

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $295.75 for loss of personal effects delivered to defendant for transportation as passenger's baggage. The amended answer set out the paragraphs from defendant's schedule, filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which are quoted in the opinion. The answer further alleged that plaintiff, being aware of the rates and rules as set out, duly elected and agreed with defendant that the value of the baggage should not be deemed in excess of $100, and pursuant to such agreement plaintiff delivered it to defendant; and as a part of the contract defendant gave plaintiff its local duplicate baggage check No. 21,219 W, which check set forth the agreement covering the transportation of the baggage. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before C. L Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of $150 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, it appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Interstate shipments -- limitation of liability -- statutory regulations.

1. Under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution Congress may regulate the contract between the carrier and shipper as to liability for loss in interstate shipments. Until legislation by Congress the extent of the liability is determined by the application of common-law principles, or by the public policy of the particular state, or it may be fixed by statute.

Interstate shipments -- Hepburn Act.

2. By the Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906 (34 St. 584, c. 3591) Congress exercised its authority to regulate interstate shipments and the power of the state was at an end.

Interstate shipments -- filed tariffs control.

3. The schedules of fares and charges and the regulations filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission by the carrier pursuant to the provisions of the Hepburn Act are controlling between the carrier and the shipper.

Interstate shipments -- loss of baggage.

4. The schedule of fares and charges and baggage regulations filed by the carrier with the Interstate Commerce Commission fixing the limit of liability for loss of baggage bind the carrier and passenger in interstate transportation.

Lind, Ueland & Jerome, for appellant.

Henry W. Volk, for respondent.

OPINION

DIBELL, C.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, denying its motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover the value of baggage lost in interstate transportation.

On September 20, 1911, the plaintiff bought a ticket at Colby, Kansas, over the defendant road to Albert Lea, Minnesota. He received a baggage check designated on one side as a local duplicate check from Colby to Albert Lea, and on the reverse was the following:

"Notice to Passengers.

"This company will not be responsible for loss or damages in any sum over $100 for local baggage which consists of wearing apparel and such personal effects of passengers as may be necessary for their journey."

The defendant had at the time on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission schedules of passenger fares and charges, and baggage regulations, which stated that "150 pounds of baggage not exceeding $100 in value will be checked without charge for each adult passenger," and which also contained this provision:

"Unless a greater sum is declared by the passenger, and charges paid for increased valuation at time of delivery to carrier, the value of baggage belonging to, or checked for, an adult passenger shall be deemed and agreed to be not in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00). * * *

"If passenger, at time of checking baggage declares a greater value than one hundred dollars ($100.00) * * * each one hundred dollars ($100.00) in value, or fraction thereof, above such allowance will be charged for at ten (10) per cent of the excess baggage rate per hundred (100) pounds. * * *

"Charges for declared excess valuation must be prepaid and collection must be made in cash."

The plaintiff was not informed of the schedules, nor was his attention called to the limitation of liability on the baggage check, nor was the question of value mentioned. The case was submitted to the jury under instructions which permitted the plaintiff to recover the full value of his baggage, unless he in fact consented to the limitation, and which gave no further effect to the schedules and rates filed. As applicable to an intrastate carriage the instructions were correct under our decisions. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. §§ 1312-1319. The verdict was for $175.

1. Under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution Congress has constitutional power to regulate contracts between the carrier and shipper in interstate shipments with respect to liability for loss or damage to property carried. Without legislation by Congress the liability is that fixed by the general common law, or that determined by the public policy of the particular state, or that fixed by the statute law of the state. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 112 U.S. 331, 5 S.Ct. 151, 28 L.Ed. 717; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477, 24 S.Ct. 132, 48 L.Ed. 268; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 18 S.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed. 688.

2. By the Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906 (34 St. 584, c. 3591) ^[1] Congress took exclusive possession of the subject of interstate commerce. When Congress exercised the authority delegated it by the Constitution, the power of the state to regulate interstate shipments, either by direct legislation or by the application of common law principles, was at an end. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, supra; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.S. 657, 33 S.Ct. 397; Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639, 33 S.Ct. 391, 57 L.Ed. 683; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Neiman-Marcus Co. 227 U.S. 469, 33 S.Ct. 267, 57 L.Ed. 600; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick F.E. Co. 226 U.S. 426, 33 S.Ct. 174, 57 L.Ed. 284; St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 227 U.S. 265, 33 S.Ct. 262, 57 L.Ed. 506.

In the Croninger case the court, in referring to the Carmack amendment hereinafter quoted, said [at page 505]:

"That the legislation supersedes all the regulations and policies of a particular state upon the same subject results from its general character. It embraces the subject of the liability of the carrier under a bill of lading which he must issue and limits his power to exempt himself by rule, regulation or contract. Almost every detail of the subject is covered so completely that there can be no rational doubt but that Congress intended to take possession of the subject and supersede all state regulation with reference to it. Only the silence of Congress authorized the exercise of the police power of the state upon the subject of such contracts. But when Congress acted in such a way as to manifest a purpose to exercise its conceded authority, the regulating power of the state ceased to exist."

3. By section 6 of the Hepburn Act (34 St. 584, c. 3591) it is provided:

"That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the Commission created by this act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares and charges for transportation between different points on its own route. * * * The schedules printed as aforesaid by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places between which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classification of freight in force, and shall also state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the Commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates, fares, and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the passenger, shipper or consignee. * * * No carrier, unless otherwise provided by this act, shall engage or participate in the transportation of passengers or property, as defined in this act, unless the rates, fares, and charges upon which the same are transported by such carrier have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this act; nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property, except such as are specified in such tariffs."

Section 20, often referred to as the Carmack amendment [34 St. 593] provides as follows:

"That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed."...