L. L. Richards Machinery Co. v. McNamara Motor Exp., Inc.

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DIETERICH
• Citation: L. L. Richards Machinery Co. v. McNamara Motor Exp., Inc., 97 N.W.2d 396, 7 Wis.2d 613 (Wis. 1959)
• Decision Date: 26 June 1959
• Parties: L. L. RICHARDS MACHINERY CO., a corpartnership, Respondent, v. McNAMARA MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., a corporation, Appellant.

Page 396

97 N.W.2d 396

7 Wis.2d 613

L. L. RICHARDS MACHINERY CO., a corpartnership, Respondent, v. McNAMARA MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., a corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 26, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1959.

Edwin C. Rachow, Milwaukee, Jerome F. Treis, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.

John E. Krueger, Milwaukee, for respondent.

DIETERICH, Justice.

The learned trial court found:

'1. That said plaintiff, L. L. Richards Machinery Company, is a co-partnership.

'2. That said defendant, McNamara Motor Express, Inc., is a corporation engaged in business as an interstate common motor carrier of freight.

'3. That on the 24th day of September, 1956, there was shipped and transported from St. Louis, Missouri, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the lines of the defendant, pursuant to a uniform order bill of lading, one radial drill and a table.

'4. That said shipment when delivered to the defendant for carriage was in good condition.

'5. That upon arrival of said shipment in Milwaukee said plaintiff surrendered said bill of lading to said defendant.

'6. That at the request and direction of said plaintiff said shipment was thereupon delivered and released to Lorence Mfg. Company of Milwaukee.

'7. That thereafter and upon inspection of said shipment it was discovered that said shipment had been damaged.

'8. That said shipment was damaged while in transit on the lines of the defendant.

'9. That the plaintiff's damages amounted to $2,110.32.'

Its conclusions of law were '1. That defendant is liable as a common carrier for the said damage.

'2. That plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $2,110.32, together with interest thereon from the 24th day of September, 1956, and costs.'

The testimony discloses that on the afternoon of September 23, 1956, representatives of the Lorence Manufacturing Company and the L. L. Richards Machinery Company inspected the machine, and it was found to be in good working condition.

The evidence further discloses the damaged condition of the machine, after arriving at its destination and delivery, as shown and explained by photographs taken by Mr. Lorence.

Mr. John R. Richards, sales manager of the respondent, testified that the Lorence Manufacturing Company notified him on the day of the arrival of the shipment in Milwaukee of the damaged condition of the machine. He further testified that the transfer company had been notified of the damage.

The shipment was made under a contract, namely, a uniform bill of lading. The bill of lading recited that the goods were received by appellant in apparent good order except as noted, consigned and destined to the Lorence Manufacturing Company at Milwaukee.

The court found that the respondent contracted with appellant to carry the machine in question safely from St. Louis to Milwaukee for a consideration, and that the machine was delivered to the defendant as a common carrier in good condition, and was damaged while in its possession in transit from St. Louis to Milwaukee through causes for which appellant failed to show that as such common carrier it was not liable. The bill of lading contained no exceptions and upon such facts and evidence we must conclude and hold the defendant-appellant liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff-respondent.

The burden of proof is on the carrier to exempt itself from liability in case of loss or damage by showing that the damage was occasioned by one or more exceptions exempting it from liability. L. Struebing Co. v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 1910, 142 Wis. 657, 126 N.W. 21.

Liability for damages attaches to the carrier when goods are in good condition when received unless it proves the damage was through some cause for which it is not...