Shriver v. S. C. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 April 1878
• Citation: 24 Minn. 506
• Parties: ANN SHRIVER <I>vs.</I> SIOUX CITY & ST. PAUL RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

24 Minn. 506

ANN SHRIVER vs. SIOUX CITY & ST. PAUL RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 12, 1878.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Nobles county, Dickinson, J., presiding.

E. C. Palmer, for appellant.

Clarke & Soule, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

At Tiffin, Ohio, the plaintiff shipped with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company two marble slabs, packed in a close box, consigned to herself at Worthington, in this state, and upon the requirement of the company executed an agreement releasing the company, and each and every other company over whose line the goods might pass to their destination, from any and all damages that might arise from certain specified causes, and "from any cause not arising from gross negligence of the said company or companies, its or their officers or agents." The slabs passed to their destination over the Baltimore & Ohio, and two other railroads, to St. James, in this state, and over the road of the defendant from St. James to Worthington, and when delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, at Worthington, were found to have been broken. This action was brought to recover damages for the injury.

At the trial an objection was made to a question to a witness accustomed to packing marbles for transportation, calling for his opinion, upon whether these marbles were properly packed. It was a case for expert testimony, and the objection was properly overruled.

The court charged the jury, in substance, that common carriers of goods cannot, by contract, absolve themselves from the consequences of their own negligence, and that, the contract proved, could not be allowed to have that operation; that the burden of proof to show ordinary care was on the defendant, and that the jury might presume negligence from the fact that the goods were found to be damaged when delivered to plaintiff at Worthington.

Defendant excepted to these propositions in the charge, and requested an instruction that the contract was reasonable, and that the plaintiff could not recover without gross negligence of the defendant, which the court declined. Defendant also requested an instruction that if the marble was so improperly packed by the plaintiff that it could not be handled with reasonable care in the transportation without injury thereto, the plaintiff cannot recover. The court gave this instruction, with the qualification, "unless the injury happened independent of the defects in the packing." To this defendant excepted. The qualification was correct, for while plaintiff could not recover for an injury to which her negligence contributed, no negligence of hers unconnected with the cause of the injury could defeat a recovery.

The charge presents the question of the power of a common carrier of goods to limit by contract his liability as it existed at common law. It is perhaps to be regretted that courts have allowed any relaxation of the common law rule of liability. But that a common carrier may by special agreement qualify to some extent his liability is too well settled by decisions to be denied. How far he may do it the authorities are not entirely agreed. The greater number of authorities in the United States hold, and, since Christenson v. American Express Co. 15 Minn. 270, it is to be taken as the settled doctrine of this court, that a common carrier of goods shall not be permitted to exonerate himself by contract from liability for his own negligence, or the negligence of the agents whom he employs to perform the transportation. The contract in question seeks to exonerate the carrier from liability for all except gross negligence, and is obnoxious to the rule. The charge of the court upon it, and upon the rule, was correct.

When there is a contract limiting the liability to injuries caused by the negligence of the carrier, which party, the owner or the carrier, must show from what cause the injury or loss arose, is a question upon which there...