Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Sherrod

• Decision Date: 22 March 1888
• Citation: 84 Ala. 178,4 So. 29
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. SHERROD.

4 So. 29

84 Ala. 178

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. SHERROD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 22, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; JOHN P. HUBBARD Judge.

Jones & Falkner, for appellant.

Williamson & Holtzclaw, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

The suit is brought by appellee to recover damages for the failure of appellant to deliver furniture and other goods shipped from Birmingham to Cherokee, Ala. The goods were destroyed by a collision between two of defendant's trains on a bridge, which was "unsafe for the passage of trains in case of collision thereon, and was being repaired." The bill of lading contains a stipulation limiting the value of the goods, and the extent of the defendant's liability in case of total loss. The agreed statement of facts shows that without such agreement as to the value a much greater rate of freight was charged on such shipments than was charged in this case, which rate was reasonable; and that the limitations as to value was it consideration of a reduced rate of freight, and was inserted in the bill of lading as a part of the contract of shipment. The plaintiff contends that a carrier cannot stipulate so as to limit the common law measure of his liability for loss caused by his own negligence. The contestation is founded on the general proposition that a common carrier cannot relieve himself by special contract from liability for loss or injury resulting from his negligent conduct.

Whether a carrier may limit the extent of his liability by an agreed valuation has heretofore been considered in several cases by this court. In Railroad Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, where the action was on a contract for the transportation of live stock, such stipulation was, under the circumstances of the case sustained as just and reasonable. It was said: "If the measure of the liability thus fixed appeared to be greatly disproportionate to the real value of the animal, and the amount of freight received, we should not hesitate to declare it unjust and unreasonable; but, as the case is presented, it seems to have been intended to adjust the measure of liability to the reduced rate of freight charged, and to protect the carrier from exaggerated or fanciful valuations. We cannot, therefore, pronounce it unjust and unreasonable and it is the measure of the appellant's liability." The principle of the decision is that the carrier and shipper may lawfully contract as to valuation in case of loss, when the contract is supported by an adequate consideration, and there is no imposition, coercion, or unfair dealing. This ruling was adhered to in a subsequent case between the same parties. 56 Ala. 368. In Railroad Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611, expressions are found in the opinion to the effect that the law will not tolerate that a carrier shall stipulate, by special contract, for exemption from liability for the value of the goods carried, when the loss or injury occurs from the want of ordinary care, skill and diligence. The main question in the case related to the construction and effect of a special term in the bill of lading limiting the extent of the company's liability. The contract was construed as not exempting the company from liability for the value of the goods if lost by the want of ordinary care, skill, and diligence. The rule established by the preceding cases was recognized; which is that the limitation of the carrier's common-law liability may extend "to the amount of damages for which he will be liable in the event of loss or injury, when the purpose appears to secure a just and reasonable proportion between the amount for which he is liable and the freight which he is to receive." The first of the cases above referred to is cited as sustaining this rule. It was not intended to overrule the former cases. The decision is in terms confined to the case before the court, which...