Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones

Decision Date13 February 1902
Citation132 Ala. 437,31 So. 501
PartiesSOUTHERN RY. CO. v. JONES.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; A. A. Coleman, Judge.

Action by Inez B. Jones against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for damages to plaintiff's horse shipped over defendant's road by her agent in his own name, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Smith &amp Weatherly, for appellant.

Bowman & Harsh, for appellee.

McCLELLAN C.J.

(1) It is conceived to be settled in Alabama on principles of public policy that a common carrier cannot contract at all for immunity from liability for the loss of or injury to property resulting from his own or his servant's negligence. (2) It is conceived to be settled in this state also that, in consideration of reduced freight charges and the like, the shipper and the carrier may contract that, in case of loss or injury, whether resulting from negligence or other cause, the value of the property at the time and place of shipment, not exceeding an expressed sum, shall be the measure of recovery. And (3) it has also been declared by this court that under such contract recovery will be limited to the sum so expressed, unless the real value of the property is greatly disproportionate thereto,--so much greater than the stipulated maximum of value and liability as to render the contract unreasonable, and therefore not binding on the shipper. We have no doubt of the correctness of the first proposition. Of the soundness of the second the writer has always had the gravest doubts. Indeed, if it were an open question, he should adopt the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Manning, J., in Railroad Co. v Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 616, 23 Am. Rep. 578. He does not see how this proposition can logically stand with the first stated above. But, conceding it to be settled, the limitation upon it embraced in the third proposition shears it to a large extent of its evil tendencies and possibilities, and brings the law back toward the salutary and true doctrine that common carriers cannot stipulate, under any circumstances, against liability for the consequences of their own negligence; and we are of opinion that while, under our adjudications, the carrier, in consideration of reduced freight charges, may agree with the shipper that in case of loss or injury the recovery shall be limited to a valuation of the property expressed in the bill of lading, and that such agreement will be enforced by the courts when such valuation is not greatly below the real worth of the property, such agreements will not be countenanced or given effect if they are unreasonable,--if they limit damages for loss or injury to an amount greatly less than the damages in fact sustained. It is plain that this doctrine must be rested upon the same ground that underlies the original proposition forbidding agreements against liability for the results of negligence,--public policy. And in determining whether a stipulation is void as being against public policy there is no room for inquiry into the knowledge, information, or intention of the parties. The question is not what the parties knew or intended, but what is the effect of the stipulation;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Homer v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1912
    ... ... C. C. Rep. 550; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, ... 100 U.S. 24; The Kensington, 183 U.S. 263; Hart v. Pa. R ... Co., 112 U.S. 331; Southern Ry. v. Jones, 31 ... So. 501; Railway Co. v. Weakley, 50 Ark. 397; ... Donolon v. S. P. Co., 91 P. 603; Michalitschke ... v. Wells Fargo ... ...
  • Alabama Great So. R. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 3, 1955
    ...48 S.Ct. 234, 72 L.Ed. 555; Southern Express Co. v. Owens, 1906, 146 Ala. 412, 41 So. 752, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 369; Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones, 1902, 132 Ala. 437, 31 So. 501; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thomas, 1887, 83 Ala. 343, 3 So. 802, on second appeal, 1889, 89 Ala. 294, 7 So. 762; United Sta......
  • Hanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1909
    ... ... Express Co., 137 F. 982; Railway ... Co., v. Patrick, 144 F. 632; Michelitschke v. Wells ... Fargo Co., 50 P. 847; Pierce v. Southern Pac. Ry ... Co., 47 P. 847; 52 P. 302; Alair v. Northern Pac ... Ry. Co., 54 N.W. 1072, 19 L. R. A. 764; Smith v ... American Express Co., ... of the property. Speaking upon this question in the recent ... case of Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 ... So. 501, Chief Justice McClellan says: "In determining ... whether a stipulation is void as being against public policy, ... ...
  • American Silver Manufacturing Company v. Wabash Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 1913
    ... ... goods. In re Released Rates, 13 Interstate C. C. R ... 556; Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 427; Railroad v ... Jones, 132 Ala. 437; Railroad v. Huslett, 112 ... Tenn. 348; Railroad v. McIntire, 82 S.W. 346; ... Lace Curtain Mills v. Navigation Co., 145 F ... thereto is neither illegal nor void as against the declared ... public policy of the United States. [See Kansas City ... Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639; 33 S.Ct. 391, 57 ... L.Ed. 683.] In so far as the public policy of Missouri is ... concerned, we have none on ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT