O'Malley v. Great Northern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 13 June 1902
• Docket Number: 12,783 - (147)
• Citation: 90 N.W. 974,86 Minn. 380
• Parties: THOMAS O'MALLEY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

90 N.W. 974

86 Minn. 380

THOMAS O'MALLEY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

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.

SYLLABUS

Carrier -- Limiting Liability.

A common carrier may, by express contract, just and reasonable in its provisions, limit his common-law liability; and contracts entered into for that purpose, fairly and honestly made as a basis for the carrier's charges and responsibility, and not merely to relieve him from the consequences of his negligence or that of his servants, are valid and enforceable.

Carrier -- Conclusiveness of Contract.

A written contract, purporting to have been entered into for that purpose, is not conclusive upon the question whether it was fairly and honestly entered into, but extrinsic evidence is admissible, and may be resorted to in determining that question.

Negligence -- Verdict Sustained by Evidence.

Plaintiff delivered to defendant a car load of horses to be transported between certain points on its line of railway. In the written contract for their shipment was a stipulation that the value of the horses did not exceed the sum of $50 each, that such valuation was made the basis on which the rate of compensation or freight charges of the company was fixed, and that the liability of the company in case of loss or damage to the horses should not exceed that amount. During the transportation one of the horses was killed by the alleged negligence of defendant's servants in the operation of the train, and plaintiff brought this action to recover the actual value of the horse killed, viz., $125. It is held that the question whether the limitation in respect to the liability of the company as to the value of the horses was fairly and honestly made and inserted in the contract as a basis on which defendant's compensation and responsibility was determined was, on the evidence, one of fact for the jury to determine, and that the evidence sustains their verdict. It is also held that the evidence is sufficient to sustain their finding that defendant was guilty of negligence causing the death of the horse, and that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.

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

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

OPINION

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...