Van Epps v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Decision Date | 14 September 1916 |
Docket Number | 9508. |
Citation | 89 S.E. 1035,105 S.C. 406 |
Parties | VAN EPPS ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; George Prince, Judge.
Action by H. Van Epps and D. Moultrie Epps, copartners trading under the firm name and style of Epps & Epps, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
F. L Willcox, of Florence, for appellant.
Philip H. Arrowsmith, of Lake City, for respondents.
This is an action for damages in which the plaintiffs allege that on the 29th of May, 1914, at Lake City, in the state of South Carolina, they delivered to the defendant 425 baskets of beans, consigned to the party therein named in the city of New York; that, by reason of negligence on the part of the defendant in transporting said shipment of beans to their destination, they were so delayed in carriage as to devolve upon plaintiffs a loss of $333.33; said shipment not having arrived at the point of destination until the 3d of June 1914, a period of six days in transit.
The defendant denied the allegations of negligence, and set up as a defense that it was agreed by the shippers that the freight was not to be carried or delivered for or with reference to any specified time, but only with such reasonable dispatch with reference to other business of the carrier as the general business would permit; that the carriers should not be liable for any injury to or delay of fruits and vegetables or other perishable freight due to detention or delay occasioned by an accumulation of freight at any point, or to the breaking down of engine or cars, or to any other causes over which the carriers had no control; that the delay, if any, which occurred in delivering the fruit in question at destination was caused by an accumulation of freight at the point of destination, and by other causes over which the carriers had no control.
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, but the amount thereof is not disclosed in the record. They, however could not have found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for an amount exceeding $333.33, under the charge of his honor the presiding judge. The defendant appealed upon exceptions which will be reported.
The first question we will consider is presented by the first exception, assigning error on the part of his honor the presiding judge in permitting the witness D. M. Epps to testify that plaintiffs notified defendant of the time the beans in question were to be sold. This question arose as follows:
It was not only necessary for the plaintiffs to show negligence arising out of an unreasonable delay, but that such negligence was the proximate cause of the damages. The testimony was competent on the ground that it tended to prove an element of damages.
In the case of N. Y., P. & N. Ry. v. Pen. Produce Exch., 240 U.S. 34, 36 S.Ct. 230, 60 L.Ed. 511, the court had under consideration the following question:
"Was the plaintiff entitled to recover because its shipment failed to arrive in time for the market of May 28th, when the regulations under which the shipment moved were published in tariffs duly on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and specifically provided, 'No carrier is bound to transport said property by any particular train or vessel, or in time for any particular market, or otherwise than with reasonable despatch, unless by specific agreement indorsed hereon'?"
In disposing of that question the court said:
This is conclusive of the question raised by this exception.
We next proceed to determine whether there was error on the part of his honor the circuit judge in refusing to direct a verdict.
The plaintiffs and the defendants both introduced testimony tending to show the circumstances under which the delay occurred. The question whether the carrier failed to transport with reasonable dispatch, raises an issue for the jury. Commins v. Railway, 78 S.C. 8, 58 S.E. 944. The rule is thus stated in 2 Enc. of Law (1st Ed.) 841:
The testimony was susceptible of more than one inference. Therefore the circuit judge could not have directed a verdict without invading the province of the jury.
The fourth exception raises the question whether the initial carrier is responsible for the negligence of a connecting carrier.
In the case of N. Y., P. & N. Ry. v. Pen Produce Exch., 240 U.S. 34, 36 S.Ct. 230, 60 L.Ed. 511, the court was called upon to decide the question whether the Carmack Amendment imposes on the initial carrier liability for delay occurring on the line of its connection without physical damage to the property. The court used this language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanders v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.
...8604aa), the initial carrier of an interstate shipment is liable for loss or damage caused by negligence of connecting carriers. Van Epps Case, supra, which is similar to this case, and in that case it was also held: 'Where the evidence is susceptible of more than one inference, the questio......
-
Sanders v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.
...8604aa]) the initial carrier of an interstate shipment is liable for loss, or damage caused by negligence of connecting carriers. Van Epps Case, supra, which is similar to this case, and in that case it was also held: "Where the evidence is susceptible of more than one inference, the questi......
-
Carter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... not think that the plaintiff has proven this allegation ... In the ... case of Sanders v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co., 147 S.C. 487, ... 145 S.E. 400, 402, upon which plaintiff relies, the following ... is quoted with approval from the case of Van Epps et al ... v. A. C. L. Ry. Co., 105 S.C. 406, 89 S.E. 1035: ... "In an action for damages for negligent delay in ... transportation of a perishable vegetable, the plaintiff is ... required to show negligence arising out of an unreasonable ... delay, and also that such negligence was the ... ...
-
Smith v. Smith
... ... 1033] ... L. D ... Jennings and R. D. Epps, both of Sumter, for appellant ... Thos ... H ... ...