Public Service Elec. & Gas Co. v. Reading Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1951 |
| Citation | 80 A.2d 473,13 N.J.Super. 383 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
| Parties | PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. v. READING CO. |
Carl T. Freggens, Newark (Luke Kiernan, Jr., Newark, appearing), attorney for plaintiff.
Lum, Fairlie & Foster, Newark (Raymond W. Troy, Newark, appearing), attorneys for defendant.
CONLON, J.C.C. (assigned).
The plaintiff sues in two counts to recover approximately $25,000 as a consequence of damage to three pieces of electrical equipment known as current limiting reactors while in transit over the defendant railroad from the General Electric Company plant at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to the plaintiff's siding on the defendant road at Port Reading, New Jersey.
The determination of the two motions before the court involves the construction and application of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11), section 2(b), the pertinent part of which provides as follows: '* * * as a condition precedent to recovery, claims must be filed in writing with the receiving or delivering carrier, or carrier issuing the bill of lading, or carrier on whose line the loss, damage, injury, or delay occurred within nine months after delivery of the property. * * *'
The defendant contends that no notice of claim was given as provided by the statute and moves for a summary judgment of dismissal on the ground that plaintiff's claim is thereby barred.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that notice of claim was substantially given in accordance with the statutory requirement and seeks to strike that separate defense interposed to each of the two counts of the complaint.
The matter is presented on motion, counter-motion and affidavits. The facts, except as to one material situation, are not in dispute. They are substantially as follows: On June 6, 1948 defendant made delivery of the two reactors, which are the subject of the first count, to plaintiff's siding at Port Reading, New Jersey. On June 9, 1948 delivery was made in similar fashion of the reactor which is the subject of the second count. On June 21, 1948 the defendant sent to plaintiff a written notice of arrival specifying among other things the following: '2 reactors damaged in transit.' On June 28, 1949 a similar notice of arrival was received by the plaintiff containing the following: '1 reactor damaged in transit.'
Defendant does not deny that it had notice of the damage (as distinguished from notice of claim), and in fact the parties agree that after the discovery of the damage the equipment was examined by representatives of both the plaintiff and the defendant on the defendant's cars. The examination of the first shipment was made on June 11, 1948 and of the second shipment on June 25, 1948. Exactly what transpired at those examinations is not fully disclosed by the moving papers. It is agreed, however, that as a result of them and presumably with the concurrence of the representatives of both parties, the equipment was returned to the General Electric Company in Pittsfield. Whether the re-shipment was to ascertain the cause or extent of the damage or to consider whether the reactors should be repaired or scrapped is not clear. Presumably, therefore, questions of fact are involved as to which the parties are not now in agreement. Plaintiff did not ascertain the amount of damage to the equipment, I.e., the cost of repair, until December 1949 (some 18 months after the shipment) at which time it notified the defendant of its loss and requested payment.
Admittedly, under the facts as presented, the plaintiff did not file a notice of claim in writing, and if such filing were a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson & Dealaman, Inc. v. Wm. F. Hegarty, Inc.
...certiorari denied 339 U.S. 943, 70 S.Ct. 797, 94 L.Ed. 1359 (1950), and Public Service Elec. & Gas Co. v. Reading Company, 13 N.J.Super. 383, 80 A.2d 473 (Law Div.1951), 17 N.J.Super. 148, 85 A.2d 548 (Law Div.1951), affirmed o.b. 9 N.J. 606, 89 A.2d 242 In Hopper, a carload of paper sent b......
-
Loveless v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co.
...*" See also Louda v. Prague Assurance-National Corp., 1952, 347 Ill.App. 211, 106 N.E.2d 757 and Cf. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. Reading Co., 1951, 13 N.J.Super. 383, 80 A.2d 473. Loveless leans heavily upon the holding and philosophy of the Hopper case, as indeed he may, for we th......
-
Klaiber v. Frank, L--2508
... ... of, extradition based on a criminal charge shall not be subject to service of personal process in civil actions arising out of the same facts as the ... This is because of the public policy of encouraging persons to aid the courts in doing justice. On the ... ...
-
Public Service Elec. & Gas Co. v. Reading Co.
...to file a claim or claims for damage in writing within nine months. That motion was denied. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. Reading Company, 13 N.J.Super. 383, 80 A.2d 473 (Law Div. 1951). At the trial it appeared without question that upon arrival of the first two reactors at Port Rea......