Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/494/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:22:14+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 294 › The Ansaldo San Giorgio I v. Rheinstrom Brothers Co.
1. As a general rule, the measure of damages recoverable from a common carrier for the loss of or damage to the goods is the value of the goods at destination, in the condition they were in when shipped, less the actual arrived value. P. 294 U. S. 496.
2. A clause in a bill of lading providing that claims for loss or damage "shall be adjusted on the basis of the invoice value of the entire shipment," thereby relieving the carrier of liability irrespective of its negligence, where the market value of the shipment at destination, after deduction of loss and damage, was more than the invoice value of the whole shipment, is contrary to public policy, and void. P. 294 U. S. 498.
3. The agreement cannot be sustained even though supported by a valid consideration, and cannot estop the shipper from claiming damages measured according to the general rule. Id.
Certiorari, 293 U.S. 551, to review a judgment reversing a judgment of the District Court upon a libel to recover for damages to cargo.
"In the event of claims for loss, damage or short delivery the same shall be adjusted on the basis of the invoice value of the entire shipment adding expenses necessarily incurred."
for loss or damage shall be limited to the stipulated value. In case of loss or damage, this clause enures to the carrier's, but not to the shipper's, benefit. The latter can in no event recover more than his actual loss, but may have to take much less. The damages are computed in the usual way, without reference to the stipulation, but if, when so computed, they exceed the agreed limit of value, no recovery of the excess may be had. [Footnote 9] Such a stipulation, we have said, is not enforceable unless the shipper, for agreeing to such a limitation of the carrier's liability, receives a consideration consisting in the offer of a lower rate as against a higher rate offered for the service without such limitation, [Footnote 10] or, as has been said, the rate is tied to the release. [Footnote 11] Agreements of this kind are held to be reasonable, and not offensive to the public policy against contracts relieving the carrier from its own negligence. [Footnote 12] The agreement as to value in consideration of carriage at the lower rate thus obtained is held to estop the shipper from demanding damages in excess of the agreed value.
1928 A.M.C. 109. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 26 F. 2d 1016, and this Court denied certiorari, 278 U.S. 633.
See Rule 38(b) of this Court.
St. Johns N. F. Shipping Corp. v. S.A. Companhia Geral, 263 U. S. 119, 263 U. S. 125, and authorities cited.
Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272; York Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co., 93 U. S. 174; Cau v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 194 U. S. 427.
Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 84 U. S. 384; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 227 U. S. 650; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper, 246 U. S. 439, 246 U. S. 445.
Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331; Duplan Silk Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 223 F. 600, 603.
Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491; Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 236 U. S. 278; Boston & Marine Railroad v. Piper, supra; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Burke, 255 U. S. 317.
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Burke, supra, 255 U. S. 321.
Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra, 112 U. S. 340; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, supra, 227 U. S. 649-650.
Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Erie & Western Transportation Co., 117 U. S. 312, 117 U. S. 322; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Olivit Bros., 243 U. S. 574; Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 244 U. S. 31; The Oneida, 128 F. 687.
Chicago, M. & St.P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U. S. 97.
Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Erie & Western Transportation Co., supra; Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., supra, 244 U. S. 36; Chicago M. & St.P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., supra.
Western Transit Co. v. Leslie & Co., 242 U. S. 448, 242 U. S. 453-454; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Burke, supra, 255 U. S. 320-323.
See The Ansaldo San Giorgio I, 3 F.Supp. 579, 581.
Compare Pearse v. Quebec S.S. Co., 24 F. 285, 287, 288.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.