Court Opinion

ID: 9826295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:43:59.863565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:00.002049
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Jones:
I concwr. There is a vital distinction between our statute and the Georgia statute, which was *285condemned in Central of Georgia R. R. Co. v. Murphy, 196 U. S., 194, as an unlawful interference with interstate commerce. The Georgia statute made the initial carrier absolutely liable if it failed within thirty days after application to inform the shipper in writing when, where, how and by what carrier the freight was lost or damaged, together with the names of witnesses to establish such facts; whereas, our statute, sec. 1710, provides that the carrier shall be excused from liability upon proof that by the exercise of due diligence it has been unable to trace the line upon which the loss or damage occurred. The Georgia statute prevented .a carrier from availing itself of a valid contract exempting from liability for loss or damage occurring beyond its own line except upon an onerous condition, which in many cases it could not meet; whereas, the South Carolina statute excuses the carrier if the loss did not occur on. its own line and it could not after due diligence comply -with -the requirement of the statute. Section 2176 provides that the carrier may discharge itself from liability by, the production of a receipt in writing for the articles from1 the connecting carrier, and the act of 1903 makes the bill of lading, etc., issued by the carrier for the freight, etc., prima facie evidence of liability for loss or damage to the goods in course of transportation.
The effect of these statutes as applied to interstate shipments is not to regulate interstate commerce, or to- burden it, or materially interfere therewith, but to afford a reasonable protection to the shipper, in view of the great difficulty in the way of his proving where the loss occurred, and the relative ease and effectiveness with which the carrier might with reasonable diligence ascertain the facts and communicate to him.
Mr. Justice Woods concurs in both the above opinions.