Lyon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1914
• Citation: 81 S.E. 1,165 N.C. 143
• Parties: LYON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

81 S.E. 1

165 N.C. 143

LYON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 11, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Whedbee, Judge.

Action by J. J. Lyon against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Complainant in a shipper's action against a carrier for damages, if defective, held aided and its deficiencies supplied by verdict for plaintiff.

This action was brought to recover damages for negligently failing to ship and deliver to plaintiff certain dry goods and bed ends with rails attached. The goods were delivered to defendant at Ayden, N. C., and consigned to plaintiff at Newport News, Va. (via Pinner's Point, Va.), where plaintiff was living at the time. The goods were transported by defendant to Pinner's Point, and there delivered to the Old Dominion Steamship Company, and were carried by it to Newport News. Plaintiff inquired at the office of the steamship company for the goods, and was told that they were not there. They remained there about six months, as it appears, when plaintiff, after changing his residence from place to place, finally returned to Ayden, and requested the defendant's agent at Ayden to have the goods reshipped to him at that place. This was done, but, when they were received from defendant at Ayden, they were found to be in a badly damaged condition; some of the goods were moth-eaten and others were either broken or missing from the package.

The court submitted three issues to the jury, and they returned the following verdict: "Did the defendant, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, or its connecting carrier, the O. D. S. S. Company, negligently fail to promptly and safely transport the goods of plaintiff in question from Ayden, N C., to Newport News, Va., as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No. (2) If so, what damages is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant by reason thereof? Answer: Nothing. (3) Did the defendant, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, negligently fail to promptly and safely transport and deliver to plaintiff the goods in question, after they had received the same from the O. D. S. S. Company at Pinner's Point, Va., on the return trip? Answer: Yes, by reason A. C. L. R. R. (4) If so, what damage is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant by reason thereof? Answer $200.00."

Harry Skinner, of Greenville, and Louis G. Cooper, of Henderson for appellant.

Julius Brown, of Greenville, for appellee.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The exceptions relate mostly to the first issue, which was found in favor of the defendant, and this fact rendered harmless any error committed by the court in regard to that issue, and the judgment is not reversible for that reason. Vickers v. Leigh, 104 N.C. 248, 10 S.E. 308; Graves v. Trueblood, 96 N.C. 496, 1 S.E. 918; Perry v. Insurance Co., 137 N.C. 402, 49 S.E. 889. But we do not see that there was any error, so far as the first issue is concerned.

As to the second issue: There was evidence that plaintiff requested the agent at Ayden to have the packages returned to him at Ayden from Newport News, and defendant undertook to do so. This meets the position that there was no contract for carriage from Newport News to Ayden, but only one from the latter to the former place. The evidence sufficiently showed the relation of shipper and carrier. Porter v. Railroad Co., 132 N.C. 71, 43 S.E. 547.

Defendant then contended that there was no evidence that the damage to the goods occurred on its line. All the evidence in the case tends to show that the damage was done on its part of the route. The goods were shipped from Newport News to Ayden, and delivered to defendant at Pinner's Point in good condition. This being so, the principle, as formerly stated by this court, applies: "On proof that any carrier on the route received the goods in good condition, the burden of proof rests upon such carrier to show delivery in the same condition to the next carrier or to the consignee; it being peculiarly and almost solely within its power to make such proof." Meredith v. Railroad Co., 137 N.C. 478, 50 S.E. 1, citing 3 Wood on Railways, 1926; Railroad Co. v. Tupelo Co., 67 Miss. 35, 7 So. 279, 19 Am. St. Rep. 262; Railroad v. Emrich, 24 Ill.App. 245; Brintnall v. Railroad Co., 32 Vt. 665; U.S. v. Railroad Co., 191 U.S. 84, 24 S.Ct. 33, 48 L.Ed. 106. See, also, A. C. Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U.S. 186, 31 S.Ct. 164, 55 L.Ed. 167, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 7.

The case falls directly within the principle of Mitchell v Railroad Co., 124 N.C. 236, 32 S.E. 671, 44 L. R. A. 515, where it was held: "Common carriers, while they may limit their common-law liability by special contract, reasonable in its essential features, and not contrary to public policy, cannot exempt themselves from the results of their own negligence. In cases of limited liability, proof of shipment and loss or injury makes a prima facie case for the shipper, and then the burden is upon the carrier to show that the circumstances of the loss bring it within the excepted causes, and, when this is shown, the burden still rests upon the carrier of showing that the loss or injury was not due to its own negligence. It is a principle of law, when a particular fact necessary to be proved rests peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties, upon him rests the burden of proof. Among connecting lines of common carriers, the one in whose hands goods are found damaged is presumed to have caused the damage, and the burden is upon it to rebut the presumption." What the court said in the opinion is specially applicable to our facts: "It is the duty of a common carrier, irrespective of contract, but subject to reasonable regulations, to accept, safely carry, and deliver all goods intrusted to it. If the goods are lost, it must show what became of them, and, if they are damaged, it must prove affirmatively that they were damaged in some way that would relieve it from responsibility. The plaintiff has a prima...