April 28, 1950 

Honorable W.~ J. Murray, Jr., Chairman 

Railroad Commleslon of Texas 

Austin, Texaa 

Attention: Honorable Bryan Bell 

Opinion NO. v-1048 

Dear Sir: 

Re: Whether Articles 883, 

883(a), and 883(b), 

V.C.S., apply to,,motor 

bus companies transporting baggage. 

The subject or your request ror an OplnlOn 

relatlng~-to appllcabllltg or Articles 883, 883(a), and 

883(b), V.C.S., to motor bus companies 80 a8 to permit 

limitation or llablllty ror baggage transported, and 

whether these statutes requlre'a bond to be filed with 

the Commlsslon; has received careful study. 

You present two precise questions: 

"1. Do Articles 883, 883(a) and 883(b) 

?. of the Revised civil statutes or Texas apply 

to motor bus companies? 

"2. Do these Articles of the ~Revlsed 

Civil Statutes of Texas require that this 

bond be riled with the Railroad Commlsslon?" 

Section lc or Article 911a, V.C.S., derinee 

"Motor Bus Company" to mean: 

(I . . . every corporation or person . . . 

engaged ln the business or transporting 

persona ror compensation or hire lover the 

pubilc hlghwaye within the State of Texae. 

. . . 

Section 2 ol Article glla providea that: 
. . 

Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 2 (v-1048) 

"All motor-bus companies, as defined 

herein, are hereby declared to be 'common 

carriera . ...' 

Article 883 reads as follows: 

nRailroad companies and other common 

carriers or goods, wares and merchandise, 

for hire, within this State, on land, or in 

boats or vessels on the waters entirely 

wlthln this State, ,shall not limit or restrict their llablllty as it exists at common law, by any general or special notice, 

or by inserting exceptions in the bill of 

lading or memorandum given upon the receipt of the goods for transportation, or 

in any other manner whatever. Iso ~speclal 

agreement made in contravention of this 

Article shall be valid; provided, however, 

that 'a requlrement of' notice or olalm, consistent with the provisions or Ax-ticle~ 5546 

of the Re~vlsed Civil Statutes or Texas, 

1925, a8 a condition preoedent tokhe enforaeme& or any claim for 108s; damage and 

delay, or either or any of them, whether 

inserted in a bill of lading or other contract 0P arrangement ror carriage, or 

otherwise provided, shall be valid and Is 

not hereby prohibited." 

Thla statute was originally enacted by the 

8th Legislature in 1860 a8 Se&Ion 1 of Chapter 44..It 

L, provided: 

* . . . That common carriers or goods, 

for hire, within this State, on land or In 

*boats, .or-vessels, on the waters entirely 

within the body of this State, shall not 

limit or restrict their liability, a8 it 

exists at common law, by any general or actual notice, nor by lnaertlng exception8 

In the bill of lading, or memorandum given 

upon the receipt of the goods ror tranaportatlon, nor In any other manner, except 

by special agreement between the carrier 

and shipper, reduced to writing and signed 
. . 

Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 3 (v-1048) 

L 

by the parties or their agents." (Emphasis 

added) Acts 8th Le g-s t%Q; Ch. 44, P. 38. 

In 1863 the 10th Legislature amended Section 

1 of the WAct concerning common carriers and defining 

their llablllt1ee In certain oases," to read: 

(I . . . That railroad companies and 

other aommon cX%lTierS 0r goods, wares, and 

merchandise for hire; within this State, 

on land, or In boats, or vc88e18, on the 

waters entirely wlthln'the body at this 

State#ahall not limit, or restrict their 

liability, as It exists at common law, by 

any general or spealal notice, nor by lnsertlng exceptlons in the bill of Lading, 

nor memorandum given upon the reoelpt of 

the goods r0r transportation, .nor In any 

other manner, whatever. and no special 

agreement, made in contraventfon of tfi 

foregoing provIsions or this seation sLl1 

be valid " (Em ha 1 dd d) 

%cg., l&3; ,.'I$ ;.'7.' 

Act8 10th 

Thus, under the 1860 Act, common carriers oi 

goods ror hire aould limit or restrlot llablllty as It 

eX18ted~ at common law by *speolal agreement between the 

carrier and sfiipper." Btit the Act or 1863.removed this 

rightand In effeat rested llablllty upon oa.rrlers Or 

&oodS. wares. and merchandise ror.hlre a8 it exi8tS at 

common law. 

L : This provision or the Act as written iti 1863 

was included in the revlelons or 1879, 1895, 1911, and 

1925, In precisely the rorm of the 1863 amendment. In 

1941, the Legislature again amended this statute (Artlele 883, V.C.S.) by adding thereto, the iollorrlng language: 

II . . . provided; however, that a requirement or notloe or claim, oonslstent 

with the provisions or Artlole 5546 of the 

Revised civil Statute8 of Texas, 1925, ~a8 

a condition precedent to the enforcement of 

any alalm for loss, damage and delay, or 

either or any of them, whether Inserted in 
. . 

Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 4 (v-1048) 

a bill or lading or contract or ermnge-. 

ment l’or carriage, or otherwise provided, 

shall be valid and IS not hereby prohlblted." Act.8 47th Leg., R.S., 1941, Ch. 500, 

p. 805. 

In 1947, the statute was again amended by 

two new sections which are oodlfled as Arts. 

ii3";~ and 883(b) and read: 

"Art. 883(a). Declaration dr value; rates 

based on value; evidence 

"No specialized motor aarrler~ or other 

carrier for hire, Including the carriers 

referred to In said Article 883, shall be 

required to accept for transportation houeehdld goods, personal erreote or USed orrice 

furniture and equipment, unless the Shipper 

or owner thereof or his agent shall rlrst 

declare in writing the reasonable value 

thereor. The oarrler shall not be liable 

ln.damages ior an amount In excess of such 

declared value for the lose, destruction 

or damage or such property. The Railroad 

CO~88lOn Sha'll establish adequate rates 

consistent with such declared values to be 

assessed and aollected by such carriers. 

If the Railroad Commlaslon falls to establish such rates, then in that event suah 

carriers are authorized to collect reasonable transportation charges consistent with 

the declared value of such property." Acts 

50th Leg., 1947, Ch. 327, p. 563. 

"Art. 883b. Declaration of value. as evldenoe 

"The declaration or value by the shlpper shall not be admissible as evidence In 

any aourt a&ion unless the carrier at the 

time of acoeptance of such Shipment had or 

provlded and maintained in ioboe insurance 

in a solvent company authorized to do buslnesa in TeJCaS, or bonds, in an amount equal 

to suah dealared value to protect the owner 

of such shipment against loss or damage 

thereto; provided, however, this requirement 
Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 5 (V-1048) 

as to ln8urance or bonds shall not apply 

to steam or electrical railways." .I&. 

Article 883 prohibiting common carriers from 

llmltlng or restricting their llablllty as It exists at 

common law ~applles to baggage transported by common carriers, as well asp-to cammodltles shipped as freight. 

The liability of oarrlers of baggage entrusted to their 

care Is that bf insurer and Is the same as the common 

law llablllty of carriers of goods. Burnet v. Rltter,; 

276,s.~. 347 (Tex. Clv. App. 1925); gTex. Jur. glb 

924, Carriers, Sew. 665, 674; Q-H. & S.A. Ry. v. i&9es'~' 

77 S.W. 234 (Tex. Clv. App. 1903 

i4%7&;.* 

. 

' 

Hutahfn8on on Crarrlere~ (3rd Ed. 1906), 

- 

As said in White v. St. Louis Southwestern 

a. 86 S.W. 962, 965 (Tex. Clv. App. 19051: 

” . . . there is no law .ln this State flxlng apeclflaally the measme of llablllty 

0r carrleri3.~ror the iOSS.Or or damage to 

baggage. Their dutlea' and llabllltles are' 

the same as at common law, and at common law 

a common carrier for hire Is an Insurer of 

the Safety or baggage aommltted to its care 

ror transportatlon....~" 

It is an undoubted rule that statutes In ierogatlon of the common law should be 8trlctPy conlltrued 

and we are not persuaded that Articles 883(a) and aadb) 

In any way permit common carriers 0r persons to limit 

or restrict their llablllty-for damage to or loss of' 

w passengers' baggage as It exists at common law. We think 

the only purpose of House Bill 297 (Arts. 883(a) and 

883(b)) Is to permit oarrlere transporting as freight 

"household goods, personal erfects or used orrice fkrnlture and equipment as a alass of aommodltle8 to limit 

or restrict their llablllty.~ 

Under the Act "no specialized motor carrier or 

other oarrler for hlre, lnaludlng the oarrlers referred 

to In Article 883, shall be required to accept ior tramportatlon household goods,~personal'eff'ects or used 

furniture and equipment, unless the shipper or owner 

thereof or his agent shall first declare In wrltlng the 

reasonable value thereof...." 
Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 6 (V-1048) 

The Legislature has designated household goods, 

personal effects or used office furniture and equipment 

a class of commodities for ease in dealing with numerous 

items slmllar In character and we think such a classlflcatlon has a definite, valid objective and purpose. 

The 1947 Act provides that carriers shall not 

be required to accept the class of'commodltlea enumerated therein unless the shipper declares the reasonable 

value thereof, and Article 6496, V.C.S., defines "shipper" 

as: 

" . . . any person, firm or corporation 

tendering rrelght for shipment, and any 

-consignor OF aonslgnee or any bill or gladlng, or other person, firm or corporation 

having the right of consignor or consignee." 

'Phe 1947 Act further provides that "the Railroad Commlsslon shall establish adequate rates conslstent ~with such deolared values to be assessed and aollected 

bye such carriers" and Ii the Commission rails to make such 

rates the oarrlers are authorized to collect transporta- 

~tlon oharges consistent with the declaPed value. These 

portions of the statute are persuasive and Indicate an 

objective to Include within the statute the class of eommodltles enumerated when transported as "freight" as dlstingulahed from "baggage." 

In 2 Sutherland Statutory Construotlon (3rd Rd. 

1943), 395, it 18 Said: 

c ” 

. . . where general words fOllOW speclflc Word8 In an enumeration describing the 

legal subject, the general words are con- 

'strued to embrace only objects similar In 

nature to those objects enumerated by the 

preceding specific words." 

Household goods as used in wills and tariffs 

embraces things domeatlc In nature purchased or aoqulred 

for we In and about the house, excluding articles of 

consumption and of trade. In Re Mltchell~s Will, 38 I.Y. 

Sup.26 673 (Sum. Ct. 1942). 

Baggage is "the trunks, valises, etc., which 

one carries on a journey...." Webster's New International 
..’ - 

L 

Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 7 (V-1048) 

Dictionary (2nd Ed. Unabridged, 1938). While baggage 

transported by motor bus companies as a privilege granted incident to carriage of passengers, conslderatlon for 

which Is furnished by the purchase of a tloket, m&y be 

included wlthln the UnreStriCted definition of "personal 

-errects" it 18 not Included In the restricted meaning or 

'that term asaertalned from the preaedlng words "houeehold gOod8." 

Webster's New International Dlatlonaq (2nd 

Ed. Unabridged, 1938) defines "personal effect8 as "efreds of a personal character: esp., as used In ~1118, 

tarirr laws, eta., suoh property especially appertalnlng to ones person. The term may be restricted by words 

of narrower import to things 8jUSden generls, or where 

not restricted, as in a residuary legacy, 'pax include 

all artlales not employed In one'~s bUSine88. 

As used in tills, "personal effects" is held 

to mean artlales similar in kind to apeclrl~ articles 

enumerated. ,It la a broad expansive term and.uhen not 

restricted by cont~ext embrace8 everything within the 

L deserlption of personal property, but when used~ln the 

expreaalon "household-furniture and erreats" its meaning 

Is re8trloted to household goods. The words are not 

words or art, have no fixed meaning and:.are to be lnterpreted In aucordance with use and may be restricted 

by appllcatloh of the rule ejusden generls to a partlcular class or type or commodities or propert speclflcally mentioned. In Re Llppenoott's Estatei 370fslj1;8, t 59 

Pa. Supp. 1896); Child V. &ton, 183 At 

N.J. Ct. Chan. 1936) 48 C J 1046 Per&al 'Sec. 6; 

+ In Re MIchaelson's E&ate, i8'N.Y. &up.26 59,‘60 (Sum. 

. . 

The problem here Is to determine the meaning 

the words "personal efredts' had in the leglslatlve 

vocabulary, and we think the meaning must be.ascertalned 

from the preaedlng words "household goods.* Rad the' 

Legislature intended the words "personal eirects" to be 

used In their unreatr1cted 8enseh It would not ha;e employed the more particular term household goods. The 

words npersonal efrects" must be construed in their ordinary meaning Interpreted from the context of the 

statute In the light of the purpose sought to be accomplished by Its enactment. 
-. . 

Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 8 (V-1048) 

In Popham v. Patterson, 121 Tex. 615, 51 S.W. 

2d 680 (1932), the court said: .. 

"In construing statutes It is the duty 

of the court to ascertain the leglslative~ 

Intent, and, when such Intent is once arrived at, It should be given errect; in fact, 

such intent Is the law. In determining the 

legislative intent, the court should not look 

alone to any one phrase, clause, or sentence 

of the Act, but to the entire Act; and this 

Includes the caption, the body of the Act, 

and the emergency clause...." 

Application of this rule makes It clear that 

the Legislature Intended to permit "specialized motor 

carriers" and other carriers transporting as freight 

"household goods, persdnal effects or used office furnlture and equipment' as a class or commodltles to restrict llablllty. We find no intention expressed in 

the~1947 ijet or reasonably to be lmplled from Its terms 

to allow carriers of'persons for hire to llmlt or restrict their llablllty as it exists at common law for 

loss of or damage to baggage of passengers transported 

Incident to the carriage of persons. 

In answer to your first question, we hold 

that Articles 883, 883(a) and 883(b) do not apply to 

motor bus companies. We believe that our answer to your 

first question appropriately disposes of your second 

question. 

. SUNMARY 

Articles 883, 883(a) and 883(b), v.c.s., 

do not apply to motor bus companies so as to 

permit llmltatlon or.restrlctlon of llablllty 

for damage to or loss of baggage of passengers 

transported as an Incident to carriage of 

persons. 

APPROVED: 

Charles D. Mathews 

Executive Assistant 

Joe R. Greenfill 

First Assistant 

Yours very truly, 

PRICE DANIEL 

Everett Hutchinson 

ASSistallt 

EH:db