Scott v. Sample

• Decision Date: 28 February 1921
• Docket Number: 22670
• Citation: 87 So. 478,148 La. 627
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: SCOTT v. SAMPLE

87 So. 478

148 La. 627

SCOTT v. SAMPLE

No. 22670

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 28, 1921

Original Opinion of November 3, 1920, Reported at 148 La 627.

OPINIONOn Rehearing.

DAWKINS J.

On reconsideration we are convinced that the finding in our former decision that the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to maintain a watchman over the cotton after it had been delivered on the railroad platform was erroneous.The platform was built bye and was the property of the railroad company, erected for the convenience of the owners of the cotton, to facilitate its shipment, and was the point at which it was received by the railroad, just as much so as the platform of any regular freight depot.The only connection that it had with defendant's business as a public ginner was that it was joined to the press platform by a runway over which the cotton was carted to the railroad platform; shipments from the latter being made almost daily.It is true that the arrangement afforded defendant some convenience in getting the cotton after it was pressed, and his undertaking with respect thereto had been completed, out of his way; but the main purpose of the platform here in question, as stated, was for the benefit of the owners and the railroad company.If, instead of being situated as it was, the platform had been 100 yards away, disconnected with the gin, and the cotton had been, at the owner's instance, delivered there for shipment, just as it was here we think it would hardly have been contended that defendant owed any further duty in the premises.We can therefore see no difference between that case and the present one, where the same character of delivery was made to the railroad company, merely because it was nearer by.Meyer & Co. v. Railway Co.,41 La.Ann. 639, 6 So. 218;^[1]Whitehurst v. T. & P. Ry. Co.,131 La. 139, 59 So. 42;6 Corp. Juris, p. 1142, § 96, verbo Bailments.

It is true, as shown by the authorities cited by plaintiff(Sea Ins. Co. v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co.,159 F. 676, 86 C. C. A 544, 17 L.R.A. 925;Nicholls v. Roland,11 Mart.[O. S.]190;Schwartz, Kauffman & Co. v. Baer,21 La.Ann. 601;Thomas v. Darden,22 La.Ann. 413;andGibbons v. Railway Co.,130 La. 671, 58 So. 505), that, where a bailee fails to return property intrusted to his care, he bears the burden primarily of showing why he has failed to do so.But, when he has shown that the cause was due to destruction of the bailed goods by fire, the burden again shifts to the shoulders of the bailor to show that the fire (contrary to the case of a common carrier, innkeeper, etc.) was caused by the bailee's negligence.McCullom v. Porter,17 La.Ann. 89;40 Cyc....