Greyhound Corporation v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 01 July 1966
• Docket Number: No. 4059,4059
• Citation: 413 S.W.2d 439
• Parties: The GREYHOUND CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jacqueline STEVENS, Appellee. . Eastland
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 439

413 S.W.2d 439

The GREYHOUND CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jacqueline STEVENS, Appellee.

No. 4059.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

Eastland.

July 1, 1966.

Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Robert J . Malinak, Stephen A. Wakefield, Houston, for appellant.

Hinds & Meyer, John K. Meyer, Houston, for appellee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

In July, 1962, while Jacqueline Stevens was a passenger on The Greyhound Corporation's bus, making an interstate trip from Houston, Texas, to Dover, Delaware, her luggage and its contents were lost by Greyhound. Her baggage was checked free on one passenger ticket or fare. She sued for the value of the bags and contents. Greyhound, relying on rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission and federal decisions, principally the Hooker case, hereinafter discussed, tendered to Miss Stevens $25.00, as the limit of its liability for loss of her baggage. In a trial to the court, judgment was rendered for Miss Stevens against Greyhound for $500.00, the agreed value of the lost baggage and contents, and Greyhound has appealed.

Appellant's points of error are, in substance, that the court erred in refusing to limit the liability of appellant to $25.00 for the loss of appellee's baggage because (1) appellant had filed a baggage tariff with the Interstate Commerce Commission, thereby giving notice to appellee that its liability was so limited, unless she declared a value in excess of $25.00 and paid the charge therefor; because (2) appellee, as a matter of law, was given reasonable notice that appellant's liability was so limited, unless she declared an excess value and paid the charge therefor, and because (3) appellee was given a reasonable opportunity, as a matter of law, to choose between paying an extra charge for increased protection of her baggage or paying the standard passenger rate, and therefore her protection was limited to $25.00.

Before boarding the bus Miss Stevens checked two suitcases in the bus depot. They were never returned to her. Appellee was given two baggage checks or receipts for her two suitcases at the baggage counter. She immediately put the checks into her purse and did not read the liability limitation printed thereon until she arrived in Delaware on August 1st. On the front of the baggage checks there was a statement that appellant's liability for her baggage was limited to $25.00 and she was referred to the back of the checks. On the back was printed a 'Contract Notice to Passengers' by which the party accepting the checks agreed to make no claim in excess of $25.00 for loss of property checked as baggage on one full-fare ticket, unless the passenger declared in writing, the value of the baggage was in excess of $25.00, in which event a charge for the excess value would be made. They recited that the checks were accepted subject to all conditions of published tariffs. Miss Stevens did not declare a value in excess of $25.00 and did not pay anything above the cost of her passenger ticket for transportation of her baggage.

When Miss Stevens checked her bags there was a framed sign stating 'INTERSTATE BAGGAGE LIABILITY $25.00 UNLESS A GREATER VALUE IS DECLARED' hanging at the end of the baggage counter to her left. When she bought her ticket, a sign was hanging over the Western Union Telephone at the right end of the ticket counter which contained a notice that tariffs naming rates, fares, charges, rules and other provisions were on file in that office and could be examined by anyone upon request. Another such sign hung to appellee's right when she checked her suitcases at the baggage counter, and still another such sign, giving notice of the tarriffs, hung behind the ticket office.

A copy of the National Baggage Tariff certified by the Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission as being in force at the time Miss Stevens made the trip was introduced. According to the applicable tariff, a free baggage allowance of $25.00 in value was allowed for each adult ticket purchased. The tariff limited the liability of Greyhound for loss of such baggage to the maximum free value allowance of $25.00, unless the passenger declared a value in excess of $25.00 and paid the charge therefor. But it provided that if excess value was declared and the charge therefor paid the passenger could recover the declared value.

At the trial appellant tendered to appellee $25.00, which she refused. The court found that, (1) although appellant had posted the mentioned signs and had given appellee said baggage checks calling attention to the limitation of its liability, Greyhound had not afforded Miss Stevens a reasonable opportunity to discover that its liability for lost baggage was limited by the tariff to $25.00, or (2) a fair opportunity to choose between transportation of her baggage with liability limited to $25.00 or transportation with higher liability. The court concluded, as a matter of law, that such tariff was applicable to the facts of this case but that appellant's liability was not limited to $25.00 because Miss Stevens was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to discover the limitation and declare a higher value.

It is not questioned that appellee's trip was interstate and that the federal law, as set forth in the Interstate Commerce Act, governs the situation to the exclusion of state laws. Adms Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 509, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314, 321, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 257. of state laws. Adams Express Co. v. is the 1913 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Boston & Maine R.R. v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97, 119, 34 S.Ct. 526, 58 L.Ed. 868, 879. In that case the plaintiff checked her baggage free on a first-class ticket for an interstate journey. She declared no excess value and paid no excess charges. Her baggage was lost. The carrier contended that its liability was limited to $100.00 by virtue of its compliance with federal statutes which required the filing and posting of regulations limiting its liability for loss of baggage as a part of the carrier's tariff schedules. Notices were posted that such regulations were on file and that baggage not exceeding $100.00 in value could be checked free on one passenger ticket. Plaintiff had no actual notice of these regulations and, although she received a baggage check, the opinion does not show there was a notice of such limitation of liability printed on it. The United States Supreme Court there held that under 49 U.S.C.A § 6, the carrier was required to file and post such regulations as a part of its tariff schedules and that the effect of the carrier's compliance therewith was to give notice of rates based upon value when the baggage was of a greater value than $100.00, and that delivery and acceptance of the baggage without declaration of higher value, charged the carrier with liability only for the amount so limited by regulations filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission .

Common carriers operating interstate have long been required to file tariffs, by which they may limit liability for loss of a passenger's baggage, unless the passenger declares a value in excess of the limited amount and pays the charge therefor. When such a carrier complies with this requirement its liability for lost baggage has been held ever since the decision in the Hooker case to be limited to the amount specified in the tariff, unless the passenger declares a greater value and pays the charge therefor.

In 1935, Congress passed the Motor Vehicle Act, which provides that

'Every common carrier by motor vehicle shall file with the Commission, and print, and keep open to public inspection, tariffs showing all the rates, fares, and Charges for transportation, and all services in connection therewith, of passengers or property in interstate * * * commerce * * *.' 49 U.S.C.A. § 317(a). (Emphasis ours.)

Congress thereby expressly required interstate buses to file tariffs, with the resulting limitation of liability unless an excess value was declared by the passenger and the charge therefor paid. See 49 U.S.C.A. § 6 and 49 U.S.C.A. § 317(a). When such tariffs are filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission they are binding upon both the carrier and the passenger whose baggage is transported in interstate commerce.

After the Hooker decision, in 1915 Congress passed the first Cummins Amendment which declared that any attempt to limit liability by a common carrier transporting goods in interstate commerce was unlawful and void, except when a declared value had been stated 'in writing.' It provided, however, that the carrier could be required to state specifically the value of goods 'hidden from view.' The Interstate Commerce Commission interpreted this exception relating to goods hidden from view to apply to baggage transported on a passenger train upon the ticket of a passenger. Determining that baggage carried free upon the ticket of a passenger should not be subject to the same rule as ordinary freight, Congress, in 1916, eliminated that provision when it passed the second Cummins Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to restore the law of full liability as it existed prior to the 1906 Carmack Amendment, so that when thereafter property was lost recovery might be had for its full value. But, from that general rule Congress excepted Baggage carried free on passenger trains upon the ticket of a passenger. Such provision is still in force and may be found in 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11). After declaring void any attempt to limit liability for loss of property in interstate commerce said statute makes this exception:

'Provided, however, That the provisions hereof respecting liability for full actual loss * * * notwithstanding any limitation of liability * * * and declaring any such limitation to be unlawful and void, Shall not apply, first, to baggage carried on passenger trains or boats, or trains or boats carrying passengers * * *.' (Emphasis ours.)

In Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 41...