Case Name: The Ballston Refrigerating Storage Company, Respondent, v. Eastern States Refrigerating Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-01-04
Citations: 142 A.D. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Ballston Refrigerating Storage Company, Respondent, v. Eastern States Refrigerating Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 135–143

Head Matter:
The Ballston Refrigerating Storage Company, Respondent, v. Eastern States Refrigerating Company, Appellant.
Third- Department,
January 4, 1911.
Bailment — damages — apples in cold storage — proper temperature — proof of negligence.
Where in an action against a cold storage company to recover for injury to apples stored with it, alleged to have been caused by negligence in allowing an improper temperature in the warehouse, it appears that the apples when first stored in October were fancy fruit in proper condition; that.they were examined in February and found to be sound, but that when again examined early in April they were scalded, discolored, damp and in a damaged condition, and it further appears that an even temperature of thirty-one to thirty-two degrees was necessary to preserve the fruit; that the temperature was not so maintained but was allowed to rise as high as thirty-eight degrees, and that the conditions existing in the fruit could only have been caused by a failure to maintain the proper temperature for at least thirty-six hours, the burden is on defendant to show some reason for the rapid deterioration and that it did not happen in consequence of its failure to use due care.
This is so, although plaintiff did not show that the defendant in fact permitted the temperature to become excessive for at least thirty-six hours, as the only possible inference is that the excessive temperature did continue for that length of time.,
Cochrane and Smith, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, the Eastern States Refrigerating Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Saratoga on the 14th day of July, 1910, upon the report of a referee.
The plaintiff, in October,' 1907, stored with the defendant company, at its cold storage warehouses in Albany and in Jersey City, a quantity of apples. "When the apples were removed in the fore part of April, 1908,. the plaintiff claims they were scalded, discolored; damp and iii- a damaged condition-, and seeks to recovér the damage caused thereby, alleging that the fruit was not properly stored, and that the defendant negligently allowed an improper temperature in the warehofises.- The referee found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon the referee’s report. Other facts appear in the opinion.
Neile F. Towner, for the appellant.
Frank H. Brown, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, J.:
The findings establish, upon sufficient évidence, that the apples when teceived in storage in October were fancy No. 1 f ruit in good and sound condition, and when examined in February were in sound and proper condition; that when removed the fore part of April they were scalded, discolored, damp and in a damaged condition, which damaged condition was produced between February and April; that the necessary temperature for the preservation of apples is from thirty-one to thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit, uniformly maintained ; that such temperature was not maintained, but defendant allowed it to rise until it reached and continued for some period at thirty-four to thirty-six degrees, and on one occasion for some period to thirty-eight degrees; that the damaged and scalded condition of the apples was such as would be produced by a failure to maintain a uniform temperature at about the freezing ¡joint for a period of at least thirty-six hours; that á uniform temperature of about the freezing point can readily be maintained in a cold storage compartment, and that the damage was caused by the defendant's negligence.
The defendant's evidence suggests no reason "to account for the rapid decline of this fancy fruit between February and April. Its experts claim that such conditions sometimes appear in proper storage, and, are usually attributed to some defective condition of the apples when stored; but the findings repel the idea that these apple's were in such condition when received. Conceding the quality of the fruit in October and February to be as the referee finds it, the defendant's experts are at a loss to account for its subsequent condition with proper storage. The defendant was charged with the duty of offering some reason for the damaged condition of this fruit, and, as found by the referee, has failed to, show that the injury to the apples did not happen in consequence of the failure to exercise due care. The other findings and the evidence exclude the supposition that it could have occurred otherwise. The fine condition of the fruit when received and when examined in February, and its changed condition in April, require the defendant to account for its rapid deterioration, and it failed to give any reason therefor. I find no evidence in the case justifying-the supposition that fruit stored in a perfect condition in October, and found in satisfactory condition in February, and properly cared for, may be in the condition disclosed here in April. From the express findings of fact it clearly appears that this damaged condition of the fruit cannot be accounted for except by the defendant's negligence. If we assume that it is necessary to have a high temperature for thirty-six hours, we find .the excessive temperature and a condition of the fruit which can only be accounted for by continued high temperature for thirty-six hours. The only inference, therefore, is that the excessive temperature, found from timé to time, continued for over thirty-six hours.
The evidence fairly sustains the findings and compels the conclusion that the plaintiff's damage was caused solely by the defendant's negligence. The finding of defendant's negligence, accompanied by the other findings, and the conclusions necessarily following from them,- fairly sustain the judgment. It should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except Cochrane, J., dissenting in opinion, in which Smith, P. J., concurred.