O'Malley v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1902
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,783-(147).,s. 12,783-(147).
• Parties: THOMAS O'MALLEY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 380

86 Minn. 380

THOMAS O'MALLEY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 12,783-(147).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 13, 1902.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Stevens county, Flaherty, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

W. E. Dodge and E. L. Sutton, for appellant.

Lewis C. Spooner and Marshall A. Spooner, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action to recover the value of a horse whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant in transporting the same, with other horses, over its line of railway. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appeals from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are as follows: Plaintiff delivered to defendant a car load of twenty horses to be transported from Morris, this state, to Foxboro, in the state of Wisconsin. Before reaching the destination, one of the horses was killed, by reason, as plaintiff alleges, of the negligent manner in which the car containing the horses was managed by the servants of defendant. The shipment of the horses was under the terms of a bill of lading or shipping contract in which appears the following stipulation, among others, namely:

"This agreement, entered into on the day above stated between the Great Northern Railway Company of the first part, and Tom O'Malley of the second part, witnesseth: That the said railway company has received from said second party one car load of horses to be transported from Morris, Minn., station to Foxboro station, at the published tariff rate, the same being a reduced rate, given subject to the regulations printed at the heading of this agreement, and upon the terms and conditions following, which are admitted and accepted by the undersigned shippers as just and reasonable; that is to say, * * *. And it is hereby further agreed that the value of the live stock to be transported under this contract does not exceed the following mentioned sums: Each horse, fifty dollars. Such valuation being that whereon the rate of compensation to the railway company for its services and risk connected with said property is based. The party of the first part does hereby declare that this contract was made and entered into by it relying upon the declaration of the party of the second part that the valuations above given are the just and true values of such live stock, and the party of the second part agrees and declares that such valuations are the just and true values of such live stock, and understands and agrees that the party of the first part entered into the contract relying that such values so given are the just and true values of such live stock."

The action was brought to recover the sum of $125 as the value of the horse, and the defense was: (1) That defendant was not guilty of negligence; (2) that plaintiff's negligence in respect to the manner of loading and caring for the horses during transportation was the cause of the death of the horse in question; and (3) that plaintiff is limited in the amount of his recovery, if entitled to recover at all, to the sum stipulated in the contract as the value of the horse, viz., $50.

It is the generally accepted doctrine of the courts that a common carrier may, by express contract, limit his common-law liability; and contracts entered into for that purpose, when not intended solely as an exemption from negligence of the carrier or his servants, and when otherwise just and reasonable, are very generally sustained. Ray, Neg. Imp. Duties, 34, et seq.; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 288. If, however, the purpose of such contracts be merely to place a limit on the amount for which the carrier shall be liable, then as to losses resulting from his negligence such limitation is not deemed just or reasonable, and is not binding; but, on the other hand, if the limitation as to the value of the property be fairly and honestly made as the basis of the carrier's charges and responsibility, it is upheld as a just and reasonable mode of securing a due proportion between what the carrier may be responsible for and the compensation he receives, and to protect himself from extravagant and fanciful valuations, whether subsequent loss occurs through the carrier's negligence or not. The law on this subject is very clearly stated in Alair v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 54 N. W. 1072.

The contract involved in the case at bar is very explicit, and clearly comes within the rule laid down in that case. It was prepared by the agent of defendant, and presented to plaintiff for his signature. He signed it, and the agent delivered to him the original, or a duplicate, which he retained. It is claimed from this that plaintiff is conclusively presumed to have assented to the terms and provisions of the contract, and is bound thereby.

The cases sustaining contracts of this kind as valid and binding upon the shipper all hold that the...