Summerlin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PARKHILL, J.
• Citation: Summerlin v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 56 Fla. 687, 47 So. 557 (Fla. 1908)
• Decision Date: 27 October 1908
• Parties: SUMMERLIN v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

47 So. 557

56 Fla. 687

SUMMERLIN v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 27, 1908

Headnotes Filed December 4, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

Action by Samuel Summerlin against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The liability of a common carrier as an insurer does not extent to any damage resulting from an intrinsic cause against which care and foresight could not provide, for such cause is within the principle which excuses common carriers from loss or damage resulting from the act of God. Under this rule the liability of the carrier, undertaking to transport live stock for those who choose to employ him, does not extend to any damage resulting from the nature, disposition, or viciousness of the animal.

The doctrine of the common law, which holds the carrier to the liability of an insurer, does not deny to the parties to the shipment the right to enter into contracts with reference to this liability, and it is well settled that the owner and the carrier may, by contract, provide for a limitation of the carrier's liability that is not illegal or unreasonable.

Whenever a railroad company receives cattle or live stock and undertakes to transport the same for hire, such company assumes the relation of a common carrier, and becomes chargeable with the duties and obligations which are incident to that relation, except so far as such duties and responsibilities may legally be modified by special contract.

A common carrier of goods cannot legally stipulate for exemption from liability for losses occasioned by its own negligence, or that of its agents or servants, and all stipulations for exemption from negligence, whether gross or ordinary, are ineffectual. A failure to exercise the care and diligence due from railroad companies as common carriers is negligence, without any legal distinction as being gross or ordinary.

COUNSEL

H. S. Hampton, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. P Raney and P. O. Knight, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PARKHILL J.

The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in the circuit court for Hillsborough county for loss and damage occasioned by the negligent and careless transportation by the defendant company of certain beef cattle of the plaintiff from Quincy Fla., to Tampa, Fla., and certain live hogs of the plaintiff from Hampton, Fla., to Tampa, Fla.

The defendant, for plea, said 'that the shipments in question were made under and by virtue of a certain contract entered into by and between the shipper and the defendant, wherein the shipper did assume and release the railroad company from all injury, loss, damage, or depreciation which the animals, or either of them, might suffer in consequence of either of them being weak or injuring themselves or each other, or in consequence of overloading, heat, suffocation fright, or viciousness, and from all other causes incidental to railroad transportation, and which shall not have been caused by the fraud or gross negligence of the railroad company; and this defendant avers that the injuries complained of were not caused by either the fraud or gross negligence of the railroad company, but were due to overloading, heat, and suffocation of said animals, and other causes incidental to railroad transportation, of all of which it puts itself upon the country.'

The court overruled a demurrer to this plea 'on the ground that the plea set up a valid contract between the plaintiff or shipper and the defendant company or carrier, and the declaration fails to allege that the injury to the live stock was occasioned by the fraud or gross negligence of the company or its employés.' The plaintiff not desiring to amend his declaration, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff sued out a writ of error.

In Clyde Steamship Co. v. Burrows, 36 Fla. 121, 18 So. 349, we pointed out that common carriers, by the common-law rule, are held to a very strict accountability for the loss of goods and chattels received for carriage; such accountability being independent of contract and imposed by law on grounds of public policy and commercial necessity for the protection of the owner of the property. The court said: 'In the absence of special contract restricting or modifying a common carrier's common-law liability in some particular which the courts may not consider unreasonable or subversive of public policy, such carrier is an insurer against all risks of loss or injury, except those resulting directly from the act of God or the public enemy and without the inervention of human agency while the carrier is in line of duty.' Where the happening of the injury has been contributed to by the carrier, or would not have resulted from the act of God but for the carrier's negligence or departure from the line of his duty, he is not protected. The liability of a common carrier as an insurer does not extend to any damage resulting from any intrinsic cause against which care and foresight could not provide, for such cause is within the principle which excuses common carriers from loss or damage resulting from the act of God. Norris v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 23 Fla. 182, 1 So. 475, 11 Am. St. Rep. 355. Under this rule the liability of the carrier, undertaking to transport live stock for those who choose to employ him, does not extend to any damage resulting from the nature, disposition, or viciousness of the animal. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. Rep. 489; Cooper v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 110 Ga. 659, 36 S.E. 240.

The doctrine of the common law, which holds the carrier to the liability of an insurer, does not deny to the parties to the shipment the right to enter into contracts with reference to this liability, and it is well settled that the owner and the carrier may by contract provide for a limitation of the carrier's liability that is not illegal or unreasonable. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Dexter & Conner, 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. 634; 1 Hutchinson on Carriers, § 419, and cases cited; Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. Witty, 32 Neb. 275, 49 N.W. 183, 29 Am. St. Rep. 436. Whenever a railroad company,...