Title: REESE v MIDLAND EMPIRE PACKING CO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-443 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 ADD REESE, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. MIDLAND EMPIRE PACKING CO., INC., a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Berger, Anderson, Sinclair, Murphy, Nelson, Edwards, and Molloy, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Ralph Herriott, Billings, Montana Filed : 1R.r 2 0 19fl Submitted on briefs: April 2, 1981 Decided: May 20, 1981 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Midland Foods, I n c . , ( s h i p p e r ) a p p e a l s from a judgment of $14,960.11 i n favor of Add Reese ( c a r r i e r ) e n t e r e d Septem- ber 11, 1980, i n t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, Honorable Robert H. Wilson p r e s i d i n g , following a t r i a l of t h e c o u r t held on August 1 2 , 1980. W e a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n favor of t h e c a r r i e r . This d i s p u t e involves l i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o 152 boxes of boned b u l l meat weighing 9,120 pounds. The meat was p a r t of a shipment taken by t h e c a r r i e r from t h e s h i p p e r ' s dock i.n B i l l i n g s , Montana, and d e l i v e r e d t o Lucky S t o r e s , Buena Park, C a l i f o r n i a , i n March of 1974. The d i s p u t e d 152 boxes of b u l l meat w e r e r e f u s e d by Lucky S t o r e s when d e l i v - ered by t h e c a r r i e r . The shipper deducted t h e v a l u e of t h e r e j e c t e d meat from an open account maintained w i t h t h e c a r - rier. The c a r r i e r then brought t h i s a c t i o n . The i s s u e s on appeal a r e : 1. Whether under t h e Carmack Amendment, 49 U. S . C. , § 20 // 5'cj 7 (ll), (49 U.S.C., r;2&W3j, t h e shipper i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. 2. Whether t h e r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s made by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t on March 12, 1974, t h e ship- p e r ' s employees loaded 30,000 pounds of f r e s h meat i n t o t h e c a r r i e r ' s r e f r i g e r a t e d t r u c k - t r a i l e r u n i t f o r t r a n s p o r t t o Lucky S t o r e s i n Los Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a . The loaded meat came from c a t t l e k i l l e d by t h e shipper i n i t s processing p l a n t a t B i l l i n g s , Montana, and from c a r c a s s e s d e l i v e r e d t o t h e shipper by Caviness Packing Company of Texas. The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e shipper 's employees exerci-sed ex- c l u s i v e c o n t r o l of t h e meat during both t h e butchering and loading process. C a r r i e r ' s d r i v e r s picked up the r e f r i g - e r a t e d t r a i l e r u n i t af t e r loading. The r e f r i g e r a t e d t r a i l e r u n i t was designed t o hold the temperature of the meat cargo a t the same temperature the meat was when loaded. The temperature of the t r a i l e r u n i t was set a t 20' F. The cooling u n i t would n o t lower t h e temperature of the cargo below t h a t a t which i t was loaded. The c o u r t found t h a t the r e f r i g e r a t e d u n i t functioned properly on the haul t o Los Angeles. A t the time of d e l i v e r y t o Lucky S t o r e s on March 1 4 , 1974, the load was inspected by one Whisler, an employee inspector of Lucky Stores. Whisler endorsed upon the f r e i g h t b i l l s and b i l l s of lading, the temperature of the meat, 34O F --50' F , without specifying the p a r t i c u l a r temperature of any box i n the load. Contrary t o ordinary business p r a c t i c e , Whisler did not endorse upon the f r e i g h t b i l l s o r b i l l s of lading t h e reason f o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e cargo. The c a r r i e r ' s d r i v e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t Whisler r e j e c t e d the meat because "he thought the meat had been loaded frozen and it was i n a thawing process when I delivered i t . " The f r o s t e d meat was i n boxes on the f l o o r of the t r a i l e r u n i t . After learning of t h e r e j e c t i o n , t h e shipper d i r e c t e d t h a t the meat be taken t o P a c i f i c Cold Storage, where' it was -frozen. The s h i p p e r ' s meat broker l a t e r checked the load i n s t o r a g e and advised t h e shipper t h a t the load was r e j e c t e d because it was "off odor". The shipper contends throughout the case t h a t "off odor" was the b a s i s f o r r e j e c t i o n . The t r i a l c o u r t did n o t make a finding respecting the reason f o r Lucky S t o r e s r e j e c t i n g the load. Pursuant t o d i r e c t i o n from the shipper, the c a r r i e r returned t h e meat t o the shipper i n a t r a i l e r u n i t carrying vegetables. The temperature of the t r a i l e r u n i t , while hauling vegetables, was held a t 38O F , which would n o t prevent the frozen meat from thawing. This f a c t was known t o the shipper. When the meat a r r i v e d i n B i l l i n g s , it was "soggy", and blood was running o u t of the boxes. The meat was eventually submitted t o a rendering process by the shipper and sold f o r animal consumption. The trial c o u r t found t h a t the c a r r i e r ' s r e f r i g e r a t e d t r a i l e r u n i t functioned properly a t a l l times. This finding w a s premised upon the f a c t t h a t the equipment was new and upon the d r i v e r ' s testimony t h a t p e r i o d i c checks of the load were made during t r a n s p o r t . L i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o i n t e r s t a t e shipments i s governed by the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S .C., 520 (1) , reenacted a s 4 9 U.S.C., 811707, without substantive change. This s t a t u t e c o d i f i e s the common-law r u l e t h a t a c a r r i e r , though n o t an absolute i n s u r e r , i s l i a b l e f o r damage unless the damage is caused by: (1) an a c t of God, ( 2 ) t h e public enemy, (3) t h e a c t of the shipper, ( 4 ) a public a u t h o r i t y , o r , ( 5 ) t h e i n h e r e n t v i c e o r nature of the goods. Missouri P a c i f i c Railroad v. Elmore & S t a h l (1964), 377 U.S. 134, 138, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 1145, 1 2 L.Ed.2d 194. For t h e shipper t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case, it must show t h a t the meat was delivered t o the c a r r i e r i n good condition and a r r i v e d i n a damaged condition. The burden i s then on t h e c a r r i e r t o show: (1) freedom from negligence and ( 2 ) a p p l i c a b i l i t y of a t least one of t h e enumerated exceptions. Missouri P a c i f i c Railroad. The c a r r i e r ' s case r e s t s upon a d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s equipment and testimony by the d r i v e r t h a t the u n i t functioned properly throughout the t r i p . The s h i p p e r ' s case i s t h a t t h e meat was delivered i n good condition and, t h e r e f o r e , must have d e t e r i o r a t e d during the haul. W e have c a r e f u l l y reviewed t h e record t o determine i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support the judgment entered by t h e t r i a l court. The record i s n o t c l e a r on whether t h e meat was r e j e c t e d by Lucky S t o r e s because it was thawing o r because the m e a t was "off odor". There i s evidence t o support each. The s t r o n g e s t evidence supporting t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e shipper t h a t t h e condition of t h e meat changed during t h e period of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , comes from two sources. F i r s t , a l l of the meat t h a t was r e j e c t e d was on t h e bottom of t h e t r a i l e r u n i t . The record i s devoid of evidence from t h e s h i p p e r ' s employees regarding how t h e boxes of meat were stacked p r i o r t o being loaded i n t h e t r a i l e r u n i t . Never- t h e l e s s , assuming t h e t r a i l e r was loaded from f r o n t t o back, t h e shipper can argue t h a t a l l of t h e meat found t o be i n a "thawing process" would n o t have been on t h e bottom of t h e t r a i l e r u n i t unless t h e condition of t h e meat changed a f t e r it was loaded. The s h i p p e r ' s p o s i t i o n a l s o f i n d s some support i n t h e f a c t t h a t , i f t h e temperature of t h e trailer was held a t 20° F throughout t h e t r i p , t h e meat would n o t have been i n a "thawing process", a t t h e time it was delivered t o Lucky Stores. Again, the record i s devoid of evidence regarding whether frozen meat would thaw a t a temperature of 20' F. However, i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n favor of t h e c a r r i e r , we must affirm. W e f i n d such evidence t o e x i s t . The temperature of t h e meat a t t h e time of d e l i v e r y t o Lucky S t o r e s ranged from 34' F t o 50' F. The record d i s - c l o s e s the reason f o r t h i s v a r i a t i o n . The shipper f i n i s h e d boning p a r t of t h e b u l l meat on Monday, March 11, and t h e remainder on Tuesday, March 1 2 . The meat was shipped on March 12. The meat which was boned on Monday was p u t i n t o a f r e e z e r a t - l o 0 F u n t i l it was loaded Tuesday. The meat t h a t was boned on Tuesday was being processed i n a room where t h e temperature v a r i e d from 32' F t o 50' F. I t was n o t subjected t o f r e e z i n g temperatures and was loaded a f t e r it was boned on Tuesday. These f a c t s account f o r t h e wide v a r i a t i o n i n meat temperature found a t t h e Lucky Stores. Whether t h e meat was r e j e c t e d because it was warm and "off odor" o r because it was "thawing" t h e record can in- f e r e n t i a l l y support t h e meat being loaded by the shipper i n t h e same condition it was found t o be i n when examined a t Lucky Stores. W e must a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f t h e r e i s any s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support its judgment. Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P. Under the Carmack Amendment, t h e carrier had t h e burden of proving t h a t t h e shipper was responsible f o r t h e l o s s . The c a r r i e r met t h a t burden by proving t h a t t h e equipment d i d n o t malfunction during the t r i p , thereby c r e a t i n g an inference of damage occurring p r i o r t o t h e haul. Although t h e s h i p p e r ' s testimony attempted t o prove t h a t t h e meat was i n an acceptable condition when it was loaded, t h e r e i s evidence i n t h e record from which t h e t r i a l c o u r t could f i n d t h a t t h e meat r e j e c t e d by Lucky S t o r e s was i n t h a t same condition when loaded by the shipper. Therefore, t h e s h i p p e r ' s conduct i n handling t h e meat l e d t o t h e r e j e c t i o n . Although w e might have decided t h e case d i f f e r e n t l y had w e been t h e t r i e r o f - f a c t , t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e f i n d i n g s made by the t r i a l court. The judgment i s affirmed. We concur: