Story Case

Richard Olsen delivered a car of cattle to the Northeastern and Northern Railway Company for shipment to Chicago on Saturday night, for the market of Monday morning. While in transit, the door of the car gave way, and three of the cattle were lost. It was necessary to re-load the balance of the animals in another car, so that they did not reach Chicago until Tuesday, when market prices were lower. Olsen brought action to recover for the loss of the three cattle, and for the difference in the market value on the balance, as between Monday and Tuesday morning. The railway company contended that the breaking of the door was caused by the unruly nature of the cattle, and, therefore, it was not liable. Assuming that the cattle were wild and unruly, is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case No. 1. Taucher Vs. Wilson, Volume 68 New Hampshire Reports, Page 338

Wilson was engaged in the business of trucking goods for hire, from the railway freight station in Manchester to different stores in the city. On one of the warmest days of summer, he transported a hogshead of molasses from the freight station to Taucher's store. The distance was about a mile. By reason of the fermentation, the hogshead burst while being unloaded. Taucher brings this action for damages.

Wilson contended that the loss was no fault of his, even if he was considered a common carrier, but that the accident was the result of the inherent quality of the molasses.

Mr. Justice Chose said: "If Wilson was a common carrier, he is not liable for Taucher's loss, since it happened from the operation of natural laws, which a common carrier does not insure against." Judgment was given for Wilson.

Ruling Court Case No. 2. Klauber Vs. American Express Company, Volume 21 Wisconsin Reports, Page 21/ Volume 91 American Decisions, Page 452

A shipment of dry goods had been made from New York, to Klauber, at Madison, Wisconsin. The goods were described as a "package containing three dozen spring skirts," and similar articles. The articles, or goods, were wrapped in paper and covered with sacking. When they arrived at Madison, the agent of the company transferred them from the cars to the delivery wagons during a heavy rain storm. As a result, the goods were soaked with water, and utterly ruined. Klauber, thereupon, brings this action for damages. The company contended that it was not responsible, because the loss was due to negligence in packing.

Mr. Chief Justice Dixon said: "A common carrier is an insurer against all damage or loss of goods intrusted to him for transportation, except such as may arise from the act of God, or of the public enemy, or that of the owner himself. A hidden defect in the packing, from which damage results, in the ordinary course of handling and transportation, is the act of the owner, and the carrier is not liable. But the owner is not required to cover goods, so as to be safe from rain, wind, or fire, and where these damages are not of such a character that the damage resulting from them is recognized in the law as from the "act of God," the carrier is liable for such damage." Judgment was given for Klauber.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Although the carrier of goods is said to be an insurer of their safe transportation, it does not follow that the liability extends to loss arising from the inherent nature of the goods shipped, or negligence of the shipper. Obviously, it would be unfair to hold a carrier liable for decay of fresh fruit, if transported with all possible haste. Likewise, it would be unfair to hold a carrier liable for cattle which die of natural causes, during the course of transportation. But even in such cases, the carrier must do all that can be done for the preservation of injured property, when the injury arises from natural causes or from the inherent defect in the goods.

The Story Case is based upon the court case of Smith vs. New Haven Railroad Company, Volume 12, Massachusetts (Allen) Reports, Page 531, where Judge Foster said: "The railroad company is bound to furnish a car that is absolutely and actually sufficient to keep the cattle in bounds. Reasonably strong is not sufficient. But if the thing shipped, because of its peculiar nature, deteriorates in value, or is injured - as where one animal injures itself or inflicts injury upon another - then the carrier is not liable for such loss."

It would seem from this opinion that, although the cattle, in the Story Case, were unruly, the company should have provided against the breaking of the car, and for loss caused thereby, it is liable.