S. M. S. Sales Co., Inc. v. New England Motor Freight, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-49-A,74-49-A
• Citation: 115 R.I. 43,340 A.2d 125
• Parties: S.M.S. SALES CO., INC., et al. v. NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. v. EMKAY CHEMICAL CO., INC. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 125

340 A.2d 125

115 R.I. 43

S.M.S. SALES CO., INC., et al. v. NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. v. EMKAY CHEMICAL CO., INC.

No. 74-49-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 24, 1975.

[115 R.I. 49] Gunning, LaFazia, Gnys & Selya, Guy J. Wells, Providence, for plaintiffs.

Abatuno & Chisholm, Vincent J. Chisholm, Providence, for third-party defendant, Emkay Chemical Co., Inc.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

The plaintiffs are three foreign corporations whose goals are the distribution and sale of a line of textile goods. The manufacturer of their products takes place in a mill located in Allentown, Pennsylvania. They commenced this civil action against New England Motor Freight, Inc. in December 1969. Their suit sought damages for a loss they sustained as the result of certain goods being damaged while being transported by the defendant carrier from New Jersey to Rhode Island. The carrier in its answer asserted a limitation of liability and also impleaded as a third-party defendant Emkay Chemical Co., Inc., a corporation situated in Elizabeth, New Jersey, alleging that if the plaintiffs suffered a loss, the loss was due to the chemical manufacturer. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a direct action against the New Jersey corporation. A nonjury trial was held in the Superior Court. The trial justice found for the plaintiffs in their suit against the motor carrier but limited recovery to the amount stipulated in the bill of lading. He ruled that the carrier could recover the amount of its liability from the chemical manufacturer and that the plaintiffs could recover the full amount of their loss, to wit, $4,315.39 from the chemical manufacturer. The third-party defendant filed a motion for a new trial. It was denied. An appeal followed. ¹ Hereinafter, we shall refer to the plaintiffs as 'S.M.S.,' the defendant carrier as 'New England,' and the third-party defendant chemical company as 'Emkay.'

The record indicated that on February 6, 1968, S.M.S. shipped 11 cartons of 'greige goods' ² from its Allentown plant. The ultimate destination of the goods was a dye and finishing plant located in West Warwick, Rhode Island, where they would be processed and then returned to Pennsylvania. The goods were picked up by a motor carrier which we shall call 'Arrow.' Arrow delivered the shipment to Carlstadt, New Jersey. There the goods were transferred to New England's Carlstadt terminal and loaded onto a 40-foot-long trailer van. The van's cargo was made up of various shipments some of which were to be delivered to Connecticut, and the balance of which was destined for New England's Pawtucket, Rhode Island terminal. Part of the cargo belonged to Emkay. It consisted of some 10 to 20 steel drums of a liquid soap detergent which were to be delivered to an Emkay customer in Norwich, Connecticut. Each drum held 55 gallons of detergent. Once the van was loaded, it was attached to a trailer and New England's tractor-trailer rig moved out onto U.S. Interstate Route 95 headed north.

When the van doors were opened in Norwich, it was discovered that one of the drums had sprung a leak. The leak had spread over the trailer's floor and stained four of S.M.S.'s cartons. A stain mark of an inch or two in width could be seen running along the lower edge of each carton. Emkay's customer refused delivery of the leaky barrel. The barrel and the 11 cartons were unloaded in Pawtucket. The cartons were transferred to a truck and brought to the West Warwick dye and finishing plant.

Documents introduced at the trial showed that S.M.S.'s shipment weighed 4,980 pounds. Other evidence demonstrated that while the West Warwick dyeing and finishing process was successful in salvaging some of the stained products, just over 1,372 pounds of S.M.S.'s goods were damaged beyond repair. Since the bill of lading stipulated that the agreed value of the shipment did not exceed 50 cents a pound, New England's liability was set at $686. ³ The record sets S.M.S.'s actual loss at $4,315.39.

Before us, Emkay argues that it was not negligent and that S.M.S. has not established its right to recover the full extent of its loss. Such contentions are so devoid of merit that we will not respond to them. We will, however, discuss Emkay's contention that New England's intervening negligence immunizes it from any liability towards S.M.S.

The record makes it quite clear that New England was well aware from its past experience in transporting Emkay's drums that a drum could spring a leak while it was in transit. The carrier's treasurer told the trial justice that the carrier would place cardboard sheets under the drums to absorb 'little leaks.' 'Big leaks,' he said, presented an impossible task. The treasurer admitted that certain goods which it transported would be placed on pallets. Such a procedure keeps the cargo up off the trailer's floor. However, he made it clear that greige goods remained on the floor.

Emkay now claims that New England's failure to palletize S.M.S.'s shipment is that kind of an intervening action that breaks the chain of causation between its negligence and S.M.S.'s loss. We cannot agree.

One may not recover for an injury from the negligent act of an initial wrongdoer when a new and independent force of a responsible third party...