Ullman v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1901 |
| Citation | 88 N.W. 41,112 Wis. 150 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | ULLMAN v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. |
1. A common carrier may, by contract made with a shipper on a value basis of the subject of carriage, limit the liability for loss thereof or damage thereto, attributable to such carrier's negligence, to actual loss upon such basis; and the agreed value may be the maximum or actual value of the property.
2. If a bill of lading issued by a common carrier states the value of the property received for shipment, or the maximum value thereof, either as declared by the shipper or without specifying the same to be so declared, and the latter, without objecting to such stated value, delivers his property to the carrier and receives the bill, he thereby assents to the terms thereof as regards such value.
3. A common carrier may, in consideration of a special freight rate or other valuable consideration, secure entire exemption from liability as an insurer for loss of or damage to property, received from a shipper for transportation, not caused by negligence or willful misfeasance.
4. A contract between a common carrier and shipper, exempting the former from liability for loss of or damage to property received for transportation caused by negligence, is void because contrary to public policy; but that rule does not militate against the validity of an agreement, fairly made, liquidating such loss or damage in advance upon an actual or maximum value basis agreed upon and stated in the contract.
5. A contract between a common carrier and shipper, limiting the liability of the former for loss of or damage to the subject of carriage to an arbitrary sum of money not fixed with reference to the agreed actual or maximum value of the property, is an unlawful limitation of liability.
6. The meaning of the word “accident” includes the result of human fault held to be actionable negligence. It is not used, ordinarily, as synonymous with “mere accident” or “purely accidental” or any similar term, but as the opposite thereof.
7. The words “in case of accident” being used in a bill of lading, referring to events involving damage to the subject of carriage for which the carrier would be liable, and later in the contract the words “negligence aforesaid” being used in regard to the producing cause of injuries to the subject of carriage, without any precedent language other than the words “in case of accident” to which such words can reasonably refer, leaving such latter expression without significance except by reference to the former expression, such latter expression should be taken as pointing to the former under the rule for judicial construction, that every word or expression in a contract should be given some significance if that can reasonably be done.
8. The rule for judicial construction that where the meaning of language in a contract is doubtful, and either of two meanings is within the reasonable scope thereof, the one should be taken for the meaning intended by the parties which is in harmony, rather than the one which is out of harmony, with common-law rights, cannot properly be invoked for the purpose of determining the contractual intention of the parties, merely because a particular, significant word used by them, as an abstract proposition, may have either of two meanings.
9. Before the rule for choosing between two meanings of a word or expression can properly be applied in construing a contract, it must be determined that the meaning intended by the parties is obscure, viewing such word or expression in the light of the whole contract and from the standpoint of the parties when it was made.
10. Appropriate language being used in a bill of lading, liquidating, on a value basis, recoverable damages for the loss of or injury to the subject of carriage happening through events described by such language as to reasonably include results of negligence on the part of the carrier, and also appropriate language exempting the carrier from all liability in consideration of a special freight rate or other valuable consideration, for loss of or damage to such subject, by events not necessarily attributable to the carrier's negligence, the reasonable and sensible construction of the whole is that the limitation of liability upon a value basis refers to loss by negligence, that being the customary way of liquidating damages in advance, caused by fault of that nature, and that the entire exemption from liability refers to damages caused by such mere accidents as the carrier would be liable for, and that neither refers to occurrences for which there would be no liability whatever, nor to damages caused by willful misfeasance.
Appeal from circuit court, Oconto county; Samuel D. Hastings, Jr., Judge.
Action by Jacob Ullman against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Modified.
Action to recover the value of a horse shipped by plaintiff over defendant's road and so badly injured in the transportation as to render it useless and of no value to plaintiff. The jury found all the issues in plaintiff's favor and assessed the value of the horse at $225, for which sum, with interest, his counsel moved for judgment. The motion was granted, defendant's counsel excepting to the ruling upon the ground, among others, that if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, such right was limited to $100 and interest under the terms of the shipping contract, which was as follows:
“Chicago & Northwestern Live Stock Contract.
Limited liability--to the declared valuation of shippers, but not exceeding the following:
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Each horse, pony, gelding, mare or stallion, mule or jack¦$100¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦Each ox or bull ¦50 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦Each cow ¦30 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦Each calf ¦10 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦Each hog ¦10 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------+----¦
¦Each sheep or goat ¦3 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Agents are not permitted to receive or ship animals of a higher value than as stated above, unless by special agreement noted hereon, and a proper contract or release is signed by the owner or shipper thereof; and it is agreed between the owner and shipper of these animals, and the said railway company, that in case of accident resulting in injury to said animals, the value thereof shall in no case exceed the values named above.
Shipments of live stock in car loads or less than car loads will only be taken at the rates named herein, after this contract or agreement shall have been signed by the company's station agent, and the owner or shipper by which it is agreed and understood that such owner or shipper shall load, feed, water and take care of such stock at his own expense and risk, and will assume all risk of injury or damage that the animals may do themselves, or each other, or which may arise by the delay of trains.
Different kind of live stock must not be loaded together in the same car, except as provided for in classification or by special instructions. Agents are not authorized to agree to forward live stock to be delivered by any specified time.
For rules in regard to passing men in charge of live stock and return passes, see circulars issued from general freight department. Women not to be passed in charge of live stock. All persons in charge of live stock will be passed on trains with and to take care of the stock, and will be expected to ride in the caboose attached to the train. Persons in charge of live stock are prohibited from getting on or off cars, or walking over them while they are in motion. Agents will permit only the signatures of owners or bona fide employés who accompany the stock, to be entered on the back of the contract, without regard to passes allowed by the number of cars, and run a pen through the remaining lines. Such entry of persons in charge of and certificate of billing agent to that effect, with proper notation on the way bill, will be the authority for conductors to pass them with the stock. All persons are thus passed only at their own risk of personal injury from whatever cause.
Marvin Hughitt, Junior, Gen. Frt. Agt.
+-------------------------------------+
¦Car number 1,747.¦Way bill number 6.”¦
+-------------------------------------+
“Freight Office Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, U. S.
Stockyards Station, December 1, 1899.
Received of Jacob Ullman one car of horses to be delivered to Jacob Ullman, Marinette station, at the following rates--in consideration of which, and further valuable considerations, it is hereby mutually agreed that said company shall not be liable for loss of live stock by jumping from cars, delay of trains not caused by negligence as aforesaid, or any damage said property may sustain except such as may result from a collision of the train with other trains, or when the cars are thrown from the track in course of transportation; and in this case the company upon whose road the accident, loss or damage shall occur, shall be liable therefor, and no suit shall be brought or claim made against any other company forming a part of the route, for such loss or damage--(it being expressly understood and agreed that the responsibility of this railway company shall cease upon delivery of said property to its connecting line, unless otherwise agreed to in writing and signed by the respective parties hereto) and that the rules and regulations printed above are an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Homer v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
...Tenn. 17, 15 S.W. 837; Starnes v. Railroad Co., 91 Tenn. 516, 19 S.W. 675; Hill v. Railway Co., 33 Wash. 697, 74 P. 1054; Ullman v. Ry. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N.W. 41; Gerry et al. v. American Express Co., 62 A. All facilities and privileges to be accorded that are of value in the transporta......
-
Hanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
... ... R. Co., 91 Tenn ... 516, 19 S.W. 675; Richmond, etc., D. R. Co. v ... Payne, 86 Va. 481, 10 S.E. 749, 6 L. R. A. 849; ... Ullman v. Chicago, etc., Ry Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 ... N.W. 41, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949. The rule is announced in many ... of said authorities that such ... ...
-
Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Long
...words “mere accident” or “pure accident” are understood to “exclude negligence or carelessness.” Ullman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 164, 88 N. W. 41, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949, 956, 957;Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 37 Mo. 240, 262, 90 Am. Dec. 382, 387;Henry v. Grand, etc., R. Co......
-
Silver King Coalition Mines Co. of Nevada v. Silver King Consol. Mining Co. of Utah
... ... contract must be given meaning and legal effect ( Keith v ... Haggart, 4 Dak. 438, 33 N.W. 465, 468; Ullman v ... Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 N.W. 41, 47, 88 ... Am.St.Rep. 949; Fitzgerald v. First National Bank, ... 114 F. 474, 52 ... ...