Rosenfeld v. The Peoria, Decatur and Evansville Railway Company
| Decision Date | 24 September 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,357 |
| Parties | Rosenfeld v. The Peoria, Decatur and Evansville Railway Company |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vanderburgh Superior Court.
The judgment is reversed with costs, with instructions to the court to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial, and proceed in accordance with this opinion.
C. L Wedding, for appellant.
C Denby and D. B. Kumler, for appellee.
Appellant delivered to appellee a barrel of whiskey to be transported and delivered to James O'Brien at Litchfield, Illinois. It was never delivered, and appellant brought this action to recover its value. When it was delivered to appellee appellant received from its agents a bill of lading. In that, there is a statement of the name and residence of the consignee, and a description of the article as "1 b'll whiskey, of 400 pounds weight." Following these statements there is a blank, followed by printed stipulations, one of which reads thus: "In the event of loss or damage under the provisions of this agreement, the value or cost at the point of shipment shall govern the settlement of the same." In the blank there are letters and figures which witnesses say are "L. & O. Ex. $ 20 R. R. val.," but they are so run together, and illegible, that it would be impossible for any one, not knowing for what they were intended, to decipher them all. The interpretation of these characters, as given by the agents of the railway company is, "Leaks and outs excepted, $ 20 railroad valuation."
The contention in behalf of the railway company is, that because of those characters in the bill of lading, appellant is limited in his recovery to $ 20 and the interest on that amount from the time the whiskey should have been delivered. The court below adopted this theory, rendered judgment for the appellant for $ 21.40, although the barrel of whiskey was shown to have been worth $ 96.
On the other hand, appellant contends that the printed stipulations as to the amount of recovery should control, and that if the characters in the blank space, with the interpretation given them by witness, should be regarded as a part of the contract, it would be such a contract as the courts should not uphold. Thus we have the questions presented by the argument of counsel:
First. Can a railway company make and enforce a contract limiting the amount of recovery against it for the loss of articles received by it for transportation, as a common carrier?
Second. Do the characters in the blank in any way have the force and effect of a contract binding upon appellant?
These in their order: It is the settled law of this State, abundantly supported by authority and reason, that while common carriers may, by contract, limit their liability as insurers, they can not, by contract, relieve themselves from the consequences of their own negligence or fraud. The law will not allow a common carrier to contract to be safely negligent or dishonest. Michigan Southern, etc., R. R. Co. v. Heaton, 37 Ind. 448 (10 Am. Rep. 89); Ohio, etc., R. W. Co. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 471 (17 Am. Rep. 719); St. Louis, etc., R. W. Co. v. Smuck, 49 Ind. 302; Adams Express Co. v. Fendrick, 38 Ind. 150; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394. See Lawson Contracts of Carriers, p. 31, et seq., and the numerous cases there cited.
In the case of Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 84 U.S. 357, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L.Ed. 627, after holding that common carriers can not contract against their liability for negligence, the court reached the following conclusions:
Under these rules, and the elaborate reasoning upon which they are based, may common carriers arbitrarily, or by contract, place a value upon articles received for carriage, and in this way limit the amount of recovery against them in case of loss? If they may contract against all liability for loss by means other than their own negligence or fraud, of course they may contract for the amount of recovery in such cases. But in case of a loss through their negligence or fraud, the same reasons, at first view, would seem to exist against contracts limiting the amount of recovery as exist against contracts for total exemption; and hence some of the courts have held such contracts invalid. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. v. Simpson, 30 Kan. 645 (46 Am. Rep. 104, 2 P. 821); United States Ex. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144; Black v. Goodrich Trans. Co., 55 Wis. 319 (42 Am. Rep. 713, 13 N.W. 244); Moulton v. St. Paul, etc., R. W. Co., 31 Minn. 85 (47 Am. Rep. 781, 16 N.W. 497).
If, without any representation of value by the shipper, or a request of him for a statement of value, and without notice and contract, and a valuable consideration, the carrier should place a value upon the articles received for carriage, that would not bind the shipper. In such case, he would clearly have the right to recover the full value of the articles lost by the carrier.
If, on the other hand, for the purpose of getting reduced rates, the shipper should place a value upon the articles for carriage, or if by any kind of artifice he should induce the carrier to place a lower value upon the articles, and thus get reduced rates, it seems to be settled by the weight of authority that he could not recover beyond the value so fixed by him, or the value which by deceit he caused the carrier to fix. To hold otherwise would be to enable the shipper to take advantage of his own wrong.
Carriers have the right to fix their charges according to the value of the article to be carried. The greater the value the greater the responsibility and liability in case of loss. For assuming these, the carrier is entitled to charge increased compensation. Lawson Cont. of Carriers, pp. 88, 89, and cases there cited.
If the shipper may, by false statements or artifice,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenfeld v. Peoria
... ... interpretation of these characters, as given by the agents of the railway company, is, Leaks and outs excepted, $20 railroad valuation. The ... ...