Opinion ID: 381814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When Did Stevenson's Duties98 Begin?

Text: 208 Several provisions of the booking note 99 and Stevenson's usual bill of lading 100 concern the point at which Stevenson agreed to take responsibility for the care of the flour. These provisions required Stevenson to take responsibility at the time that the flour was loaded aboard its ships, 101 but they also permitted Stevenson to take responsibility at an earlier point. Without deciding whether Clause 12 of the usual bill of lading, see note 100 supra, effectively or permissibly disclaimed liability where acceptance occurs at a point before loading, the District Judge decided that Stevenson had not in fact taken responsibility for the flour until it was at ship's tackle. 449 F.Supp. at 122. See also 449 F.Supp. at 121 n.60. ADM attacks that conclusion for two reasons. 209 ADM relies on evidence that seems to conflict with the Judge's finding. First, when the flour arrived at the warehouses, Stevenson's local agents signed the Alabama State Docks receipts given to the railroad. The signing of the receipts suggests that Stevenson took full responsibility for the flour after that point. In addition, Item 52 of the State Docks tariff provides: 210 Alabama State Docks will not be responsible for loss of, or damage to or for delay to freight or cargo on its wharves, in its warehouses, transit sheds or in the open caused by or resulting from . . . weevils or other insects, . . . . 211 During the period of free time allowed or while on wharf demurrage cargo in transit sheds, shipside warehouses, or in open areas at shipside is in the custody, care and control of, and full responsibility therefore shall be assumed by, the vessel or its agents. 212 Although that provision is only dispositive of the allocation of responsibility between Stevenson and the State Docks, it too suggests that Stevenson took responsibility from ADM for the flour as of the time that it arrived at the warehouses. 213 Contrary to ADM's evidence is a substantial body of opposing evidence, however. For example, after the flour arrived at the warehouses, Superintendence, the agent of ADM, undertook a number of responsibilities in connection with the flour. Superintendence used fork lifts and hired laborers to move the flour around the warehouses. It test weighed, inspected, and sampled the flour. Superintendence was hired by ADM, and never attempted to obtain consent to deal with the flour from Stevenson. ADM twice authorized Superintendence to fumigate infested lots of flour stored in the warehouses. In addition, for the Nedon loading Superintendence provided written assurances that the flour was not infested. These facts certainly support a finding that ADM continued its custody of the flour while the flour was in the warehouses. 102 214 Recognizing that we might not be fully persuaded by its view of the evidence, ADM also attempts to disassociate itself from Superintendence, which performed most of the acts suggesting that Stevenson did not take custody of the flour in the warehouses. The attempt fails, however. As stated, Superintendence was hired by ADM, not Stevenson; it fumigated flour at ADM's direction; and it issued written releases for the Nedon flour. These facts are enough to support a finding that Superintendence's actions are attributable to ADM. Cf. Alabama Power Co. v. Pierre, 236 Ala. 521, 183 So. 665 (1938). 215 In sum, it is plain that substantial evidence supports a finding that the contract as intended and performed by the parties allocated responsibility for the flour to Stevenson only as of the time that the flour was within reach of ship's tackle. The District Judge was not erroneous in finding that the flour was not in Stevenson's custody while in the warehouses. Thus the only remaining aspect of ADM's attempt to place cargo responsibility on Stevenson concerns the Nedon flour after it was loaded. 103 216