Case ID: scl_16/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Colcock.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wm. Campbell, vs. Z. Morse.
    
      ¥he waggon of defendant, in ivhich he was carrying goods for hire, stuck fast in fording a creek, and the water rising suddenly, damaged the goods: Held that defendant was liable for the damage so occasioned.
    
    The defendant undertook to haul in a waggon and deli-ter goods for the plaintiff, from Charleston to York. The action was brought to’recover for damage done to the goods while on the road. The plaintiff proved the goods were injured to the- amount of about $400; that he kept and sold them at about that loss. It was not however proved' that he ever offered to return the goods to defendant, or gave any notice to defendant of the- loss or intention to sell, but sold them with his other goods. Defendant proved that at Cane Creek, in Lancaster district, the bridge was impassable, and the usual and only crossing place was at the public ford; that he had a sufficient team o-f five horses and only 2500ibs. of load; that when he was about a quarter of a mile from the said creek there fell a small shower of rain, which from all human appearances could not effect the creek; that the only place for the encamping of waggons was beyond the creek; that a heavy cloud appeared to lie up the creek; that between sun down and dark he entered the creek, when the.- water did not rise up to the bed of the waggon; that the foi'd of the creek upon the opposite side from which he'entered was very bad; that defendant knew the ford and bad crossed it in going down; that he then stuck or stalled, the hind wheels -sinking down, and in •twenty or thirty minutes the water rose so rapidly as to be half way up in the body of the waggon and do the injury complained of by the plaintiff. A witness also proved that lie had lived on this creek for forty years, but he never saw it rise before or since, as it did on that occasion. Plaintiff recovered full value of the goods. Defendant appealed on the grounds:
    1st. Because the injury proceeded from-the act of God, .and as such defendant is not liable:
    2d. Because as plaintiff kept and sold the goods, without ' notice to defendant, he was thereby discharged.
   The opinion of the court ivas delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcock.

The doctrine in relation to common carriers is so well settled, that little need he said to shew that the defendant is liable for the loss which has been sustained by the plaintiff in this case. That he is a common carrier cannot be doubted; all who earry goods from one place to anothcrefor hire are common carriers, and they are held responsible for all losses, -except such as happen by inevitable accident, as by the -act of God or the enemies of the country. The evidence reported in this case shews no such inevitable accident; even the view of it presented by the defendant himself will not support him; for admitting it possible that so sudden and rapid a rise of die creek as he states did occur, yet it is manifest that if he had gone through without stopping, no injury would have resulted; his stalling then and not the rise in the creek was the cause of injury, and if such a circumstance were to operate as a relief from liability, then carriers of this description would be always exempted. But this is not all; his team were not only insuf-iieient, but he himself guilty of gross neglect; for he should have ascertained the state of the ford before he entered it.

The last ground presented in the brief is rather a novel one. That an individual who has sustained an injury should be compelled to run the risque of a still greater one before he can obtain redress for the first, certainly does not comport with the boasted wisdom and justice of the law.

Williams, for motion. Clendenm, contra.

There was certainly no obligation on the plaintiff to deliver the goods to 'the defendant, nor to give .him notice of sale; indeed it is nothing to him whether the goods were sold or not, so that the extent of the injury was otherwise satisfactorily-proved. The evidence offered was such as the nature of the transaction afforded, and it appears was sufficient to' satisfy the jury. The motion is refused.

Gantt, Richardson, 'Johnson, and Huger,* Justices, con-.ctirred.