Gibson & Draughn v. Little Rock & H. S. W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1910
• Citation: 124 S.W. 1033
• Parties: GIBSON & DRAUGHN v. LITTLE ROCK & H. S. W. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1033

124 S.W. 1033

GIBSON & DRAUGHN v. LITTLE ROCK & H. S. W. RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 24, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Garland County; W. H. Evans, Judge.

Action by Gibson & Draughn against the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railway Company and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

S. W. Leslie, for appellants. W. E. Hemingway, E. B. Kinsworthy, and Jas. H. Stevenson, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Plaintiffs Gibson & Draughn instituted this action against the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railway Company and the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages by reason of alleged negligence of said defendants in the transportation of a car load of perishable goods, consisting of oranges and other fruits and vegetables from St. Louis, Mo., to Hot Springs, Ark., over the two roads as connecting carriers. The goods were shipped in a refrigerator car, and negligence of the two defendant railroad companies is alleged in failing to properly ice the car or to care for it in other respects while in transit.

The undisputed facts in the case are that the plaintiffs purchased the goods from a produce dealer in St. Louis, and the goods were loaded in a refrigerator car owned by the American Refrigerator & Transit Company, situated on the tracks of defendant St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, and that company issued to plaintiffs a through bill of lading to Hot Springs. No other contract with reference to the transportation and care of the goods is shown in evidence except this bill of lading. The car was transported by the Iron Mountain Road over its line and delivered to the connecting carrier, its codefendant, and by the latter transported to Hot Springs. On arrival there it was found that the holes in one of the bumpers of the car used in draining the car of water from melted ice had become clogged up by trash, so that the water would not run through, and, on account of this obstacle, the water had risen a considerable distance up on the sacks of produce in the car, and it appears that the motion of the car had jolted the water all over the produce, causing same to mold. The goods were badly damaged, and were sold at greatly reduced price. There is no evidence as to the quantity of ice in the car or its temperature, so the proof does not sustain the allegation that the car was not properly iced. The evidence was abundant, however, that the damage was caused by allowing the drain holes in the bumpers to become obstructed. Upon this state of the case, the court gave a peremptory instruction to the jury to return a verdict in favor of defendants, which was done, and the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

The duty of a carrier of freight with respect to the transportation and handling of perishable goods was fully discussed by this court in the recent case of St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Renfroe, 82 Ark. 143, 100 S. W. 889, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 317, 118 Am. St. Rep. 58, and the principles which control this case are there announced. After stating in general terms the duty of a carrier with respect to such goods, the opinion reads: "It is the contention of appellant that it discharged its duty to appellees when it furnished a refrigerator car, and that the duty of icing the car, under the evidence, devolved upon the American...