Noone v. Southern Express Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1920 |
| Parties | NOONE v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; Jas. W. Perkins, Judge.
Action by T. J. Noone against the Southern Express Company. Final judgment for defendant on demurrer to its pleas, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
A shipper of goods by a common carrier is limited to a recovery of the declared value of such goods in an action by him for the loss of his property, though occasioned by the negligence of the carrier.
A contract, fairly entered into by a shipper and a carrier as to the value of goods accepted for shipment, is binding upon the shipper in an action for the loss of such property.
S.E. Durrance, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Kay Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
On February 15, 1918, suit was begun, and the record discloses the facts following:
The defendant was a common carrier for hire, and as such received from plaintiff at Jacksonville, Fla., a trunk containing many articles of the real value of $427.50, and of a declared value of only $75, such value being declared by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining cheaper transportation of said trunk. The trunk with its contents were lost in transit, and it is alleged by and through the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff seeks to recover the real value as his damages for the loss of his property, and the defendant seeks to limit his recovery to the declared value of the property. The court below held with the defendant on a demurrer to its pleas, and from a final judgment on such demurrer this writ of error was sued out.
The plaintiff's principal contention as the writer understands his brief is to the effect that the defendant cannot contract against an act of its negligence or that of its servants.
The courts recognize it to be a true statement of the law that a common carrier cannot contract so as to exempt itself from liability for losses occasioned by its own negligence.
'The doctrine of the common law which holds the carrier to the liability of an insurer does not deny to the parties to the shipment the right to enter into contracts with reference to this liability, and it is well settled that the owner and the carrier may, by contract, provide for a limitation of the carrier's liability that is not illegal or unreasonable.' Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hinely-Stephens Co., 64 Fla. 175, text 181, 60 So. 749, 751.
In the cited case there was a contract of shipment limiting value and a departure or deviation from the contract route of shipment by the defendant, and by reason thereof only a bare majority of this court were willing to hold the carrier responsible for the real value of the shipment, while a respectable minority of the court were, with reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clubb v. Hetzel
... ... 185, and cases cited ... in note 87 ... In ... Hunter v. American Ry. Express Co., Mo.App., 4 ... S.W.2d 847, which dealt inter alia with the right of a ... carrier to limit ... applicable to the present case is White v. Southern Ry ... Co., 208 S.C. 319, 38 S.E.2d 111. The case is also ... reported in 165 A.L.R. 988 ... v. Pere Marquette R. Co., D.C., 223 F. 1018 ... [165 ... Kan. 610] In Noone v. Southern Express Co., 79 Fla ... 25, at page 27, 83 So. 607, 608, it was said: ... ...
-
Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton
...in an unbroken line of Florida cases. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Schenck, 97 Fla. 16, 119 So. 517 (1929); Noone v. Southern Express Co., 79 Fla. 25, 83 So. 607 (1920). Federal law is in accord. American Express Company v. U. S. Horseshoe Co., 244 U.S. 58, 37 S.Ct. 595, 61 L.Ed. 990 (1917)......
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Schenck
... ... A. C. L ... R. Co. v. Dexter & Conner, 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. 634, 111 ... Am. St. Rep. 116; Noone v. Sou. Express Co., 79 Fla ... 25, 83 So. 607. In the latter cited case Judge Horne, the ... ...