Lane v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1921
• Citation: 34 Idaho 37,198 P. 671
• Parties: JAMES H. LANE, Respondent, v. OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

198 P. 671

34 Idaho 37

JAMES H. LANE, Respondent, v. OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 27, 1921

CARRIERS-LIVESTOCK-CARE OF EN ROUTE-CONTRACT-NEGLIGENCE-BURDEN OF PROOF.

1. A contract between a shipper and carrier which provides that the shipper would "at his own risk and expense, load unload, care for, feed and water the stock until delivery of the same to the consignee at destination," is valid and binding.

2. Where a shipper accompanies a shipment of livestock under such a contract, the burden of proving negligence resulting in injury thereto rests upon him.

3. It is the duty of a carrier transporting livestock to furnish reasonable and proper facilities and opportunities for feeding, watering and resting them.

4. No inference of negligence can be drawn from the failure of a carrier to provide its stockyards with patented locks, unless the circumstances are shown to be such that a prudent person would have provided locks.

5. When livestock is accompanied by the shipper under a contract to care for them at his own risk and expense, and when he has unloaded them in the stockyards, the carrier's duty is performed when it furnishes suitable yards in proper condition and reasonably secure.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Lincoln County. Hon. H. F. Ensign, Judge.

Action for damages for loss of sheep. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Judgment reversed, with directions. Costs awarded to appellant.

Geo. H Smith and H. B. Thompson, for Appellant.

Under the federal act, U.S. Comp. Stats. Supp. 1909, chap. 3594, 34 Stat. 607, the carrier is not made an absolute insurer of the safety of sheep in transit, but its duty is fully performed by providing pens properly equipped and of sufficient structural strength to retain them. (Beckman v. Southern P. Co., 39 Utah 472, 118 P. 118.) Under this act a provision of the shipping contract that in consideration of a reduced freight rate the shipper assumes the duty to load unload, reload, feed, water, tend and care for the sheep at his own risk during the entire transportation, was valid and binding upon the parties; and under the statute the primary obligation is on the shipper. (Webster v. Union P. R. Co., 200 F. 597.)

The provision of the shipping contract that the shipper's agent should accompany the stock and load, unload, reload, feed, water and tend and care for the stock at Shoshone, was a regulation which affected and determined the rate to be charged, and such regulation, having been established pursuant to the provisions of sec. 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act, was binding upon both the shipper and carrier and established the status and rights of the parties thereunder. (Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A., N. S., 257; Boston & Maine R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, 34 S.Ct. 526, 58 L.Ed. 868, L. R. A. 1915B, 450; Northern P. R. Co. v. Wall, 241 U.S. 87, 36 S.Ct. 493, 60 L.Ed. 905, see also, Rose's U. S. Notes; Erie R. R. Co. v. Stone, 244 U.S. 332, 37 S.Ct. 633, 61 L.Ed. 1173.)

The duty of feeding and watering stock and otherwise caring for them may be imposed upon the shipper or owner by the terms of the contract of shipment, and if this is done, or he volunteers or undertakes this duty, he alone is responsible for the neglect to discharge it (Heller v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 109 Mich. 53, 63 Am. St. 541, 66 N.W. 667; Michie on Carriers, secs. 1755, 1756), and the burden is on the shipper to show that the loss, if any, was occasioned by the negligence of the carrier. (4 R. C. L. 995.)

C. O. Stockslager, for Respondent, cites no authorities on points decided.

RICE, C. J. Budge, McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

RICE, C. J.

Respondent Lane recovered a judgment against appellant railroad company for damages to an interstate shipment of lambs, alleged to have been wholly and entirely due to the careless and negligent manner in which the stockyards in the village of Shoshone were managed and controlled by appellant. An agent of respondent accompanied the shipment under a shipping contract which provided that the shipper would "at his own risk and expense, load, unload, care for, feed and water the stock until delivery of the same to consignee at destination." When the lambs reached Shoshone they were unloaded by respondent's agent and placed in the stock-pens provided by appellant and were fed by respondent. The gates were fastened by pins which dropped into hasps and were not provided with patented locks. After feeding the lambs, respondent's agent fastened the gates and left the sheep unattended. During the night a large number of the lambs escaped from the pens, and thirty-eight of them were lost. In the morning the gates were found closed and in the same condition in which they had been left the night before.

The provision in the shipping contract quoted above is valid and binding between the shipper and the carrier. (Webster v. Union P. R. Co., 200 F. 597; Cranor v. Southern R. Co., 13 Ga.App. 86, 78 S.E. 1014.)

Where a shipper accompanies a shipment of livestock under a contract to care for them en route, the burden of proving negligence resulting in injury thereto rests upon him. (Starr v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 103 Neb. 645, 173 N.W. 682; McBeath v. Wabash etc. Ry. Co., 20 Mo.App 445; Weesen v. Missouri P. R. Co., 175 Mo.App. 374, 162 S.W. 304; Needy v. West Md. R. Co., 22 Pa. Super. 489; Bartelt v. Oregon R. &...