Document: 377 U.S. 134 84 S.Ct. 1142 12 L.Ed.2d 194 MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner,v.ELMORE & STAHL. No. 292. Argued March 3, 1964. Decided May 4, Rehearing Denied June 15, See 1880. Thurmand Arnold, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John C. North, Jr., Corpus Christi, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented in this case is whether a common carrier which has exercised reasonable care and complied with instructions shipper, nonetheless liable to shipper spoilage transit an interstate shipment perishable commodities, when fails prove that cause was natural tendency commodities deteriorate. petitioner respondent fruit shipper. sued Texas court recover d mage carload honeydew melons shipped from Rio Grande City, Texas, Chicago, Illinois.1 2 In accordance practice, special issues were submitted jury at close evidence. affirmatively found good condition time they turned over but arrived damaged their destination Chicago. also its connecting carriers performed all required transportation services without negligence. instructed 'inherent vice' means 'any existing defects, diseases, decay or inherent nature commodity will it deteriorate lapse time.' They answered 'No' issue asking preponderance evidence on arrival Chicago due solely vice, as so defined, 'at received by transportation.'2 3 On basis these findings, trial judge entered judgment damages against carrier. affirmed Court Civil Appeals, 360 S.W.2d 839, Supreme Court, upon ground that, matter federal law, 'the may not exonerate itself showing negligence must go further establish loss damage caused one four excepted perils recognized law.' 368 99, 100. concluded, view jury's although '(a) responsible shown be entirely goods, * established deterioration.' Id. 103. We granted certiorari, 375 811, 72, 11 47, because conflict almost contemporaneous decision United States Appeals Ninth Circuit holding 'in goods burden resulted vice own compliance rules tariff shipper's instructions.'3 For reasons follow, we affirm before us. 4 parties agree liability law controlled statutes decisions. Carmack Amendment 1906,4 § 20(11) Interstate Commerce Act, makes 'for full actual loss, damage, injury by' them property transport declares unlawful void any contract, regulation, tariff, other attempted limiting liability.5 It settled statute two undisputed effects crucial case: First, codifies common-law rule carrier, though absolute insurer, transported unless can show act God; (b) public enemy; (c) himself; (d) authority; (e) goods.' Bills Lading, 52 I.C.C. 671, 679; Chesapeake O. Ry. Co. v. A. F. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 416, 421—423, 46 318, 319—320, 70 L.Ed. 659; Adams Express Croninger, 226 491, 509, 33 148, 153, 57 314; Hall Long Railroad Companies, 13 Wall. 367, 372, 20 594. Second, 'rule, limitation character whatsoever' purporting limit liability.6 Cincinnati N.O. Pac. R. Rankin, 241 319, 326, 36 555, 557—558, 60 1022; Boston M.R.R. Piper, 246 439, 445, 38 354, 355, 62 820. Accordingly, under action shipment, establishes his prima facie he shows delivery condition, amount damages. Thereupon, proof both free cargo causes relieving liability. Galveston, H. S.A.R. Wallace, 223 481, 492, 32 205, 207, 56 516; E.I.R. Collins 249 186, 191, 39 189, 190, 63 552; U.S., 420—423, James G. McCarrick 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 897, 900. disposition courts principles. apparent unable determine melons. '(T)he cause; effect. result number causes, some which, such defects liable.'7 But refused find had borne establishing vice,' defined instruction judge—including commondity does challenge accuracy judge's finding.8 Its position simply if are perishable, spoilage, then presumes perishables e en might, fact, have acts third parties,9 no exception provided. Consequently, argued, should been jury, since bear affirmative law. 6 appears recognize except arising livestock transit—a well-established general based peculiar propensity animals injure themselves each other10—no distinction made earlier cases between non-perishables. said, however, 'large-scale development, relatively recent years, long distance fresh vegetables commerce led evolution' new governing carrier's perishables, similar 'livestock rule,' absolves care, instructions.11 7 aware As recently 1956, Secretary Agriculture States, 350 162, 76 244, 100 173, gave intimation placing bringing within specified exceptions longer applied involving commodities.12 8 Nor do Rules 130 135 Perishable Protective Tariff, relied petitioner, reflect change read light history underlying adoption 1920 Commission. Rule 130, declaring 'undertake overcome decay,'13 merely restates shall held absence resulting defect goods. And 135, 'liable occur directions incomplete, inadequate ill-conceived,'14 me ely reiterates bill-of-lading liable, negligence, 'act default owner.' Neither refers presumptions burdens imposed clear intention Commission approving modify reduce Indeed, stated adopted 'such declarations controlling effect, determined Nothing added subtracted limitations definitions tariffs *. There constant risk, therefore, included, misstating misleading purpose.' Freight Investigation, 449, 482. Although concluded reason type generally objectionable, id., 483, desirability giving 'some warning shippers' decay, failure give proper instructions. Ibid. nothing more than objective.15 9 That limited purpose confirmed Commssion's rejecting additional proposal approved 1920. sought include provision known Item 20(d), reading: 10 'Nothing construed rest same carriers' negligence.' I.C.C., 481. emphatically rejected express 'a item implies there something seeks liability.' Id., 483. (Emphasis supplied.) Finally, else failing, argued policy, ought placed explain where involved, peculiarly knowledgeable about commodity's prior therefore best damage. Since argument amounts suggestion now carve out unquestioned standing shippers rely, reflected freight rates set sustain heavy persuasion. arrier sound premise knowledge '(a)ll facts circumstances (it) rely relieve (its) duty consequence, casts cannot or, explaining, bring exceptional relieved Schnell Vallescura, 293 296, 304, 55 194, 196, 79 373. persuaded lacks adequate inform receives doubted while possession, only acquire what actually entrusted care. 14 Affirmed. 15 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 16 shipping contract only. consists bill lading applicable lawfully published filed (Southern Prescott, 240 632, 637, 469, 471, 836), departure. 638, 472, 836. provides received, 'subject classifications effect' every service thereunder 'shall subject conditions prohibited including back hereof *.' form terms part Uniform Classification pursuant 1(6) Act. various types limits according rate paid, being lawful 684 et seq.; Domestic Bill 64 357, 360—361. 17 Under option either uniform lading, 'limited liability,' co mon If chooses latter pays 10% higher. Here chose One shipment. See, e.g., George N. Pierce Wells, Fargo 236 278, 35 351, 59 576. recovery allowed provide, having privilege paying increased obtaining value. 283, 353, exempt Rather turns Tariff 17, brought into play lading. 18 states: 'Carriers furnishing protective provided herein undertake retard deterioration insofar accomplished service, kind extent requested (Italics added.) 19 'Property accepted directions, only, election respecting incidents herein. furnish directed elected ill-conceived.' These provisions (see 483), 'predicated hazard freight, exercise measure control degree accorded.' 21 derogation said 165, note 9, 247, codified exempts God, enemy, authority, commodity.' operate ambit last category, supplying appropriate standards application. 22 Such force effect statute. Southwestern Sugar Molasses Co River Terminals Corp., 411, 1210, 1334. 'Until changed, bind Lowden Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain 306 516, 520, 612, 614, 83 953; Crancer Lowden, 315 631, 635, 763, 765, 86 1077. 23 decide case. 24 'performed plaintiff reasonably prudent manner matters covered plaintiff's instructions.' Judgment affirms 25 I would reverse. my hold overcomes demonstrates, here,1 ordered paid duties manner. Any nullifies permit select numerous pay corresponding charge, provide '(t)he 26 'standard refrigeration destination.' An expert witness explained "standard destination' car reiced capacity regular icing stations.'2 Generally, available fruits, vegetables, berries salt; standard refrigeration; initial only; re-icings; half-stage top body icing; cooling car; fumigation; ventilation; protection cold (heater service). '(c)harges service,' says 'will addition independent A words, charge gets lesser service. 27 instant case, inspected Department Agriculture. report said: 28 'Condition: Generally hard firm; white cream color. most samples per crate, none, average approximately 15% dark brown discoloration, sunken, occurring 1/8 1/2 surface. 3% Bacterial Soft Rot, advanced stages. 29 'Grade: Now grade account discoloration decay.' described inspector Inspection Agency, organization formed association carriers:3 30 'Well, surfae blemish melon. It's quite markets, believe it's associated immaturity. is, melon harvested little bit immature during grading packing operation, get very slight abrasions, surface darken. 31 'Bacterial Rot of—it's many fruits vegetables. organism, bacterial field origin. bacteria commonly plant debris sort thing, develops temperature moisture ripe bacteria-wise. You great temperatures here favorable lower you have, going development Rot. 'It's originated point, harvesting developed noticeable 34 weakness products owner's superior familiarity relate desired necessary varies greatly those enumerated supra, 468: Character commodity; variety local climate; season shipped; weather variations year day day; length haul; use put; package shedule freight-train operation; pre-cooling shipments; method loading; weight loaded; furnished. see Providence Fruit Produce Exchange New York Central Hudson 294, 295, 296. 37 Respondent could selected wide services, higher be. testified respondent, example, percentage salt icings speed up process. Instead, whatever reason, cheaper Notwithstanding this, ignores obvious difference nonperishables formulates contrary valid authority.4 speaking through Judge Merrill: '* th Larry's Sandwiches, Inc. Pacific Electric 318 690, 692—693. 40 opinion, statute, asked, for, rendered. What today allows guise buying sell produce railroad. complaint contained counts, stating separate claim different perishables. involved Count 1, related 640 crates Car ART 35042 City tht omissions instructions: 'Do worsened carrying handling given instructions, together obligations defendant performance carried manner, found? 'Answer 'yes' 'no.' 'We, answer: No.' Cf. Trautmann Bros. Missouri 312 102; Reading 289 7; Atlantic Coast Line Georgia Packing 164 1. Stat. 595. 386, amended; 49 U.S.C. 20(11). meaning reaffirmed Cummins 1915. 1196. Clearly recognizing phrase, 'caused did fault specifi established, permitted require file timely notice filing lawsuit forbade 422, 659. proviso forbidding requirement repealed 1930 (46 251). 305—306, 197, appear argue, specific particular court's Court's opinion. satisfying time. regard even occasioned persons.' Commodity Credit Corp. Norton, 167 161, 164—165. North Pennsylvania Commercial Bank, 123 727, 734, 266, 269—270, 287. With respect wholly intrastate shipments, States. Southern Itule, 51 Ariz. 25, 74 P.2d 38, 115 A.L.R. 1268. noted 'conceded' Act making it, 165—166 n. S.Ct., 173. 'RULE 130—CONDITION OF PERISHABLE GOODS NOT GUARANTEED BY CARRIERS.— General Regulations Commission, 34, W. T. Jamison, Agent. 135—LIABILITY furhish ship Straight merchandise concerned, 'common-law Section 1(a) party possession thereof thereto, hereinafter provided.' 1(b) provides, pertinent part, liabe 'resulting property.' language remotely suggests proving property. think significant identical used nonperishable Live Stock Contract, employed livestock. p. 204. Limitations sections apply Amendment. otherwise, transit, legal 'to bar Comm rce legalizing imposing liability, dispensed causing damage.' 251, 173 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). seriously contended things stages' 'discoloration' deterioration, decay. principal dispute centered around fact specifically, attempting indicate perhaps equipment functioning properly. discussed kinds available: 'Q. (W)ho dictates orders determines furnished refrigerator shipment? 'A. direct railroad furnish? Yes. has—I wouldn't know just how many, hundred classes starting ventilation, ice all. He icing, 240. start icings, three four. icing—which stations—he, specify salt, wants to, certain supposed step meltage refrigeration. thinks, protect shipment' Details 18, Local, Joint Proportional Charges Governing Handling Freight, National Committee, (1960). contradictory testimony came respondent's office manager who, after cross-examination attempt ny opinions 'decay sunken areas like that,' redirect examination: Have your experience business seventeen years instances? Improper refrigeration, say.' Mirski Ohio 44 Ill.App.2d 48, N.E.2d 361; 102 (C.A.5th Cir.); Elec. 690 (C.A.9th Cir.).

Category: 7