Case ID: so2d_330/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. WALDEN, Chief Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., Appellant, v. Ila M. BRATTON and Robert T. Cotterman, Appellees.
    No. 75-133.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 23, 1976.
    Rehearing Denied May 11, 1976.
    Reinald Werrenrath III, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson & Wharton, Orlando, for appellant.
    Joseph H. Williams, of Troutman & Parrish, P.A., Winter Park, for appellee, lia M. Bratton.
   PER CURIAM.

We have studied the briefs and record in this case and conclude therefrom that while the issue involved was a close one, it was properly one for the jury rather than for a directed verdict.

The other appellate points have been given serious consideration and found to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

WALDEN, C. J., dissents, with opinion.

WALDEN, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would reverse and remand with instructions to reduce the plaintiff’s judgment from $10,630 to $4,500.

Plaintiff was a shipper of household goods and defendant was a public carrier. The goods were destroyed in interstate transit. Plaintiff sued the carrier.

The bill of lading contained a clear and proper limitation of liability provision (which would limit the carrier’s liability to $4,500). Plaintiff signed the bill of lading and acknowledged at trial that she knew it was a contract but said she didn’t know about the limitation of liability proviso.

In my opinion the trial court erred in denying the carrier’s motion for directed verdict and erred in presenting the question to the jury on the plaintiff’s assertion of mistake.

And so, without elaboration, it is my view, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was bound by the limitation of liability provision in the contract.