Court Opinion

ID: 9533878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:35:14.424761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:12.034862
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur on the first shipment and dissent on the second shipment. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. First Shipment The plaintiff’s first contention is that the trial court erred in concluding: That the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in inspecting the merchandise received on September 3j 1971, and described on Exhibit “A”, and therefore Plaintiff should not be entitled to recovery on Count I of the First Amended Complaint. (Tr. 62) [Emphasis added] “It is fundamental that a judgment cannot be sustained on appeal, unless the conclusion on which it rests finds support in one or more findings of fact.” Langdon v. Jaramillo, 80 N.M. 255, 454 P.2d 269 (1969); Galvan v. Miller, 79 N.M. 540, 445 P.2d 961 (1968). The trial court made no finding on plaintiff’s duty to inspect. I consider the conclusion to be a finding that plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in inspecting the merchandise received on September 3, 1971. The failure to inspect is the basis for the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff could not recover on Count I. The only issue is: Does the failure to inspect between September 3, 1971 and January 3, 1972 deprive plaintiff of relief? The answer is “Yes”. The relationship between plaintiff and defendant is that of consignee and common carrier. “The liability of a common carrier as such for the safety of the property does not terminate until the carrier has made an actual delivery of the property, in good condition . . . .”13 Am.Jur.2d Carriers, § 405. “The general rule is that the consignee is entitled to make a reasonable examination or inspection of the goods before accepting their delivery, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in a satisfactory condition.” 13 Am. Jur.2d Carriers, § 425; 13 C.J.S. Carriers § 170. When the consignee accepts delivery, the status of the common carrier, as such, terminates. As to third persons, the common carrier is no longer in possession of and is not the owner of the property. The property is owned by the consignee. Whitney Manuf’g Co. v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 38 S.C. 365, 17 S.E. 147 (1893). The general rule of common carrier liability is no longer applicable. In the instant case, the plaintiff accepted the property on arrival, without inspection. Then the plaintiff waited four months to discover the damage. The defendant is free of liability. Kingman St. Louis Implement Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 133 Mo.App. 317, 112 S.W. 721 (1908); McEntire v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 98 Neb. 92, 152 N.W. 305 (1915). The failure to exercise due diligence in inspecting the merchandise received on September 3, 1971 denied plaintiff the right to recover damages. Plaintiff’s remaining points are answered above and require no further discussion. Second Shipment On the second shipment, plaintiff established by substantial evidence that the merchandise was undamaged at the time it was loaded by the shipper in California. During the reading of the witness’ interrogatories, the defendant objected to three questions which established the fact based upon “Exhibit A”. The objection was overruled. Section 21-1-1 (32) (c) (3) provides: Objections to the form of written interrogatories submitted under Rule 31 are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding them within the time allowed for serving the succeeding cross or other interrogatories and within 3 days after service of the last interrogatories authorized. The defendant waived objections to the questions. The answers were admissible. Exhibit “A”, which identified five packages of stall partitions, weight 189, was a memorandum from the shipper to plaintiff of the merchandise loaded in California. It was attached as an exhibit to the interrogatories submitted to the witness. By cross-interrogatories defendant examined the witness with reference to Exhibit “A”. This exhibit was before the trial court. At the conclusion of the case, on motion to dismiss, defendant did not claim that Exhibit “A” was not offered in evidence to identify the merchandise at the time it was loaded in California. The failure of plaintiff to formally offer Exhibit “A” in evidence was inadvertent and harmless error. Chavez v. Gribble, 83 N.M. 688, 496 P.2d 1084 (1972). The judgment for plaintiff should be affirmed.