International & G. N. R. Co. v. Vandeventer

• Decision Date: 08 January 1908
• Citation: 107 S.W. 560
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. VANDEVENTER.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

107 S.W. 560

INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. VANDEVENTER.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 8, 1908.

Rehearing Denied February 12, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Milam County; J. C. Scott, Judge.

Action by G. B. Vandeventer against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

S. R. Fisher, J. H. Tallichet, S. W. Fisher, N. A. Stedman, and John M. King, for appellant. Henderson & Lockett, for appellee.

FISHER, C. J.

This was a suit by G. B. Vandeventer against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by a stallion belonging to plaintiff while being unloaded at destination, a station on the line of the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that said animal was shipped by him from Lafayette, Ind., on or about February 23, 1905, and, after being safely transported over the lines of other carriers, was delivered to the defendant at Longview, Tex., about March 1st, and by it carried to Rockdale, Tex.; that in unloading said animal at said place defendant negligently failed to properly arrange the means or appliances for unloading; and that by reason of such alleged failure said stallion was injured while being removed from the car. Defendant interposed a general demurrer, special exceptions, and a general denial, and by way of answer pleaded that said stallion was shipped from Lafayette, Ind., under and by virtue of a certain written contract executed by plaintiff at said place, and alleged and relied upon the terms and stipulations of said contract as being binding upon plaintiff and available as defenses to defendant. Among other things defendant specially pleaded that plaintiff under the terms of said contract was bound to load and unload said animal, that said shipment was an interstate shipment, and that under said contract plaintiff had expressly limited his recovery for loss to the maximum sum of $100. In replication plaintiff filed his first supplemental petition to defendant's amended original answer, interposing a general demurrer, special exceptions, and a general denial. There was a trial before court and jury October 23, 1906, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $500.

The horse in question was shipped from Lafayette, Ind., under a contract of shipment there entered into between the appellee and the Wabash Railroad Company, to Rockdale, Tex., a station on the line of the appellant's road. The appellant received the horse as a connecting carrier at Longview, Tex., and was entitled to the benefits of the original contract of shipment, if its terms could be given effect, in order to limit or relieve it from liability for the injury occasioned by its negligence. The contract contained a stipulation limiting liability to a sum not exceeding $100, and contained a stipulation that the carrier could be held liable only in the event of gross negligence. The horse reached Rockdale in good order, and was, by the negligence of the appellant, substantially as pleaded, injured while being unloaded from the car at that place. The plaintiff was present when the horse was unloaded, but the unloading was under the direction and supervision of appellant's agents. The horse was a valuable stallion, purchased for breeding purposes, and the evidence shows he was worth between $1,500 and $2,000; and the petition alleges his value to be many hundred dollars more than the sum agreed upon in the shipping contract. There is evidence which shows that the value of the horse, by reason of the injuries sustained in unloading, was lessened a sum equal, if not greater, than that found by the verdict.

Appellant's first and second assignments of error complain of the action of the trial court in sustaining plaintiff's demurrers to the allegations of appellant's answer, which seeks to limit its liability to only $100, and to liability only for gross negligence. A common carrier cannot by contract relieve itself from liability from loss or injury arising from its negligence, and this is the rule whether the shipment be interstate or domestic. Railway v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Railway v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18 Sup. Ct. 289, 42 L. Ed. 688; The Kensington, 183 U. S. 266, 22 Sup. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed. 190; Railway v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 484, 24 Sup. Ct. 132, 48 L. Ed. 268; Railway v. Harris, 67 Tex. 169, 2 S. W. 574; Railway v. Maddox, 75 Tex. 303, 12 S. W. 815; Railway v. Ball, 80 Tex. 605, 16 S. W. 441; Railway v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 110, 17 S. W. 834; Railway v. Richmond & Tiffany, 94 Tex. 576, 63 S. W. 619; Railway v. Burgess (Tex. Civ. App.) 90 S. W. 191 and 193; Railway v. McIntyre (Tex. Civ. App.) 82 S. W. 347; Railway v. Moon (Tex. Civ. App.) 103 S. W. 1176. This is the rule that prevails in this state, and is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, qualified, however, by the decisions of the latter court to the effect that an agreement as to the value of the article shipped, if reasonable and fairly entered into, will be enforced (Railway v. Hughes, and cases there cited); but in such a case no federal question arises, as Congress has not legislated upon that subject and brought it within the purview of that provision of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate concerning commerce between the states, and, for this reason, the federal courts will follow the decisions of state courts where the question is to be determined. In this state it has been definitely decided that a restriction as to liability less than the true or market value of the property lost or damaged will not be enforced when such loss arises from the negligence of the carrier. Railway v. Ball and Railway v. Greathouse, supra. But, if it could be admitted that a carrier and shipper could by contract limit the...