Ideal Plumbing & Heating Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1956
• Citation: Ideal Plumbing & Heating Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 124 A.2d 908, 143 Conn. 640 (Conn. 1956)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: The IDEAL PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY v. The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 908

124 A.2d 908

143 Conn. 640

The IDEAL PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY v.The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 24, 1956.

Thomas P. Hackett, Cheshire, with whom, on the brief, was Edwin H. Hall, New Haven, for appellant(defendant).

T. Holmes Bracken, New Haven, for appellee(plaintiff).

Before INGLIS, C. J., WYNNE and DALY, JJ., and COMLEY and PHILLIPS, Superior Court Judges.

INGLIS, Chief Justice.

The trial court rendered judgment in this action for the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, a common carrier, for damage done to four large reinforced concrete pipes which had been shipped from Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, consigned to the plaintiff at Norwich, Connecticut.From the judgment the defendant has appealed.The only question raised on the appeal is whether the court erred in concluding that the pipes were injured in transit.

The following subordinate facts as found by the court are not in dispute.The plaintiff bought six reinforced concrete pipes, each sixteen feet long and sixty inches in diameter, and eight rubber gaskets from the Lock Joint Pipe Company.These pipes and gaskets were delivered by the seller to the Pennsylvania Railroad at Kennett Square on August 7, 1952, consigned to the plaintiff at Norwich, and were loaded aboard three Pennsylvania Railroad open freight cars.The pipes were put on wooden cradles and were then strapped with steel and fastened to the floors of the cars.They were braced with two by four or six by six timbers.Two bills of lading were issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad, each of which contained the statement, 'Received * * * the property described below, in apparent good order, except as noted (contents and condition of contents of packages unknown) * * *.'No exceptions were noted.The cars were moved from the point of origin of the shipment to Norwich over the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the defendant.When the shipment arrived at Norwich, four of the pipes were broken and damaged, and the supports holding them were also broken, as were the steel straps.The gaskets did not reach Norwich at all.The damage to the pipes was of such a nature that it rendered them unusable for the purpose for which the plaintiff had bought them and made them valueless.

On these factsthe court concluded that the gaskets had been lost and the pipes damaged while in transit and that, therefore, the defendant, the terminal carrier, was liable.The defendant claims that there was no reasonable basis for the conclusion that the damage to the pipes was done while the shipment was in transit from Pennsylvania to Connecticut.

To fasten liability upon the defendant, the plaintiff had the burden of proving that the damage to the pipes was done while they were in transit.Wells Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., 138 Conn. 458, 461, 85 A.2d 907.Accordingly, it is manifest that if this conclusion was unwarranted the judgment for the plaintiff was erroneous.To meet its burden of proof, the plaintiff adopted the method, quite commonly used in cases like this, of offering evidence to prove that the pipes were in good condition when they were delivered to the initial carrier but were damaged when they arrived at their destination.The court found that when the pipes arrived at Norwich they were damaged, and this finding is not attacked.The attack on the conclusion that the pipes were damaged in transit is based on the claim that the only finding concerning the condition of the pipes when they were loaded on the cars at Kennett Square was that the bills of lading contained the acknowledgment that the pipes were 'in apparent good order.'The defendant contends that this acknowledgment is not sufficient evidence to prove that the pipes were in good condition when they were received by the carrier.

The statement contained in the bills of lading was as binding on the defendant as it was on the initial carrier.Cassone v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 100 Conn. 262, 268, 123 A. 280.A statement by a common carrier in a bill of lading that the goods were received 'in apparent good order' raises at least a rebuttable presumption that the goods were free from any damage which would have been visible on reasonable inspection.Southern Ry. Co. v. Northwestern Fruit Exchange, 210 Ala. 519, 524, 98 So. 382;Goldberg v. New York, N. Y. & H. R. Co., 130 Me. 96, 100, 153 A. 812;Shepherd v. Naylor, 5 Gray 591, 71 Mass. 591, 592;Minneapolis Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 237 Minn. 111, 115, 53 N.W.2d 828, 33 A.L.R.2d 860;Jefferson Macaroni Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 9 N.J.Misc. 405, 406, 154 A. 188, affirmed109 N.J.L. 266, 160 A. 635;Sprotte v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 90 N.J.L. 720, 721, 101 A. 518;Schwalb v. Erie R. Co., 161 Misc. 743, 746, 293 N.Y.S. 842;Beresin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 116 Pa.Super. 291, 294, 176 A. 774;Carroll v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 130 Or. 294, 298, 279 P. 861; note, 33 A.L.R.2d 867, 872;Van Doren, Law of Shipment, p. 737.

The law on this subject in this jurisdiction was first enunciated in Mears v. New York, N....