Opinion ID: 1378598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did Appellant Have to Prove Negligence?

Text: As noted previously, appellant alleged that appellee Geis was absolutely liable, as an insurer, for the death of the ewes. This count was dismissed on appellee's motion for summary judgment. On prior occasions, this court has discussed the liability of a common carrier as an insurer. See: Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Tolman, 31 Wyo. 175, 224 P. 671 (1924); Oregon Short Line Railway Company v. Blyth, 19 Wyo. 410, 118 P. 649 (1911); and Shikany v. Salt Creek Transp. Co., 48 Wyo. 190, 45 P.2d 645 (1935). However, the rule of absolute liability has only been imposed in those situations where the goods are lost, or destroyed in transit and never reach their destination. [1] In the situation where goods or livestock are delivered to their destination in damaged condition, this court has always required that some showing of negligence on the part of the carrier be made before the owner of the goods will be permitted to recover. Worland v. Davis, 31 Wyo. 108, 223 P. 227 (1924); Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Pacific Market Company, 28 Wyo. 461, 206 P. 143 (1922); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Simpson Bros., 23 Wyo. 342, 151 P. 902 (1915); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Morris, 16 Wyo. 308, 93 P. 664 (1908). In view of the fact that Geis, in the case at bar, delivered all of the transported ewes to the predetermined destination point, the trial judge correctly concluded that the absolute-liability rule was not applicable. It therefore became incumbent upon appellant to prove negligence on the part of Geis in order to recover.