Moulton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 02 August 1883 |
| Citation | 16 N.W. 497,31 Minn. 85 |
| Parties | Hulbert Moulton and another v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, refusing a new trial, after a trial before Brill, J and a jury, resulting in a verdict for $ 400 in favor of plaintiffs.
Order affirmed.
R. B Galusha and J. Kling, for appellant.
The carrier of live-stock is not subject to the stringent common-law liability of an ordinary common carrier. Hutchinson on Carriers, §§ 217-240; Michigan South., etc., R. Co. v. McDonough, 21 Mich. 165; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329.
The contract limiting defendant's liability is valid. South, etc., R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606; Christensen v. Am. Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 208, (270;) Shriver v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 506; Harvey v. Terre Haute, etc., R. Co., 6 Am. & Eng. R Cas. 293; Hart v. Pa. R. Co., 7 F. 630.
Hiler H. Horton and Henry Burleigh Wenzell, for respondents.
The plaintiffs shipped two car-loads of horses at St. Paul, over defendant's line of road, to points in Dakota. Two of the horses died by reason of prolonged exposure to cold weather as is claimed, caused by defendant's negligent detention of the train during transportation. The action is for the recovery of the value of these two horses, which appears to have been $ 200 each. For the purposes of this appeal, we are to consider the negligence of the defendant as established, and are to determine whether the defendant is liable for its negligence, and the measure or extent of its liability under the contract made by the parties.
The contract under which the property was shipped, and which was executed by both plaintiffs and defendant, contained the provisions that in consideration that the defendant would transport the property at the rate of $ 75 per car-load, "the same being a rate given, subject to the conditions of this contract," the plaintiffs released the defendant from the liability of a common carrier, and from any liability for any delay in shipping the stock after its delivery to the defendant, and agreed that the liability of the defendant should be only that of a private carrier for hire. The plaintiffs contracted to assume all risk of damage which might be sustained by reason of any delay in transportation, and all risk of damage from any other cause, not resulting from the wilful negligence of the agents of the defendant. It was further agreed that, in case of total loss, the damage should in no case exceed the sum of $ 100 per head, and, in case of partial loss, damage should be measured in the same proportion. A printed "regulation" of the defendant, attached to the contract, provided that the defendant would not assume any liability over $ 100 per head on horses and valuable live-stock, except by special agreement. By the contract of the parties the owner of the horses attended and cared for them upon the passage, without extra charge for his own transportation.
A railroad company which undertakes to transport live-stock for hire, for such persons as choose to employ it, assumes the relation of a common carrier, and becomes chargeable with the duties and obligations which are incident to that relation. Kimball v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 26 Vt. 247; Rixford v. Smith, 52 N.H. 355; Clarke v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 14 N.Y. 570; Evans v. Fitchburg R. Co., 111 Mass. 142; St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504; Powell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 32 Pa. 414; Great Western Ry. Co. v. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427, 433.
By this it is not meant that the carrier is an insurer of the property as respects injury which it may suffer from all causes. Such a liability does not exist without qualification as to personal property generally in the hands of a carrier. He is not, for instance, an insurer in respect to any injury unavoidably resulting from the essential nature of the property itself, such as the natural decay of fruit, although he should use reasonable care for its preservation. For like reasons as those upon which rest the exceptions to the absolute obligation of the carrier, as respects property generally, it is undoubtedly true that the ordinary common-law liability of the carrier is subject to some modifications arising from the nature and propensities of the animals, and their capacity for inflicting injuries upon themselves and upon each other, when live-stock is the subject of transportation. What may be the nature and extent of such modifications we have no occasion now to consider. For our present purposes it is enough to say that cases where the injury is the result of want of ordinary care on the part of the carrier are not within the exceptions to the rule. See cases above cited.
The recovery in this case rests alone upon the neglect of the defendant to transport the horses to their destination within a reasonable time, whereby, from exhaustion and exposure to cold, they died. The law has been determined in this state and in most of the United States, as well as in the federal supreme court, to be that a common carrier of goods cannot by contract relieve himself from liability for his own negligence. Christenson v. Am. Exp. Co., 15 Minn. 208, (270;) Shriver v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 506; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 84 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial