Title: Mississippi Moving & Storage Co. v. Western Elec.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

498 So. 2d 340 (1986) MISSISSIPPI MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. No. 56067. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 12, 1986. *341 John L. Low, IV, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellant. Tommy E. Furby, Low & Furby, Jackson, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: The Circuit Court of the First Judicial District, Hinds County, entered summary judgment in favor of Western Electric Company, Inc., (Western Electric) and against Mississippi Moving & Storage Company (Mississippi Moving) for eight thousand three hundred twenty dollars ($8,320) damages to electronic equipment owned by Western Electric Company, Inc. Mississippi Moving & Storage Company appeals from that judgment. The question presented on the appeal appears more and more frequently before this Court, viz, did the lower court err in granting summary judgment for the appellee? On September 21, 1979, appellant and appellee entered into a standard transportation services contract (the contract) which provided schedules of services and compensation for moving Western Electric equipment to and from locations and for hoisting and loading equipment in connection with such moves. Appellee contends that the issue of damages must be determined under the contract while appellant thinks that the issue should be decided under the limitation of liability provision of the bill of lading or, in the alternative, the question of which provision should apply was for the jury to determine. The full damage was stipulated to be $8,320, claimed by appellee under the contract. From the bill of lading and the limitations thereof, the total amount due appellee, according to appellant, is nine hundred dollars ($900.00). On August 25, 1980, employees of appellant went to the Western Electric location, 410 Meadowbrook Road, Jackson, Mississippi, to remove three (3) pieces of equipment (rectifiers), called "bays." The workmen successfully brought up all three bays from the basement of the building to the ground floor, and out to a Mississippi Moving truck with the help of a crane.[1] The bays were loaded on the truck for transporting to Greenwood, Mississippi. Two of the bays were successfully loaded and tied down, but the third rectifer, after having been placed on the tailgate of the truck bed, fell to the ground when the tailgate collapsed, and sustained damage in the sum of $8,320.00. The bill of lading contained the following provision: The real issue here is whether or not the contract governs or the bill of lading applies. The parties have been dealing with each for a number of years and have operated under the same type contract and bill of lading. Affidavits in support of and opposition to, the motion for summary judgment were filed by appellee and appellant as to the general course of doing business between them. The appellee argues that the bill of lading was not signed or accepted by it and has no significance or bearing upon the damage claimed. Appellant contends that it was not necessary for the bill of lading to be signed and that such instrument determined appellant's liability. See 13 Am.Jur.2d Carriers § 272 (1964). Brown v. Credit Card Center, Inc., 444 So. 2d 358, 362 (Miss. 1982), held: 444 So. 2d at 362. We have carefully reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, tariff, and other exhibits in the record, and are of the opinion that there was a genuine issue of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a trial on the merits. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. [1] The bays each weighed approximately 1,500 pounds.