Court Opinion

ID: 8753821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 11:37:31.107276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:07.311693
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(concurring). In concurring in the opinion of the court I deem it proper to state the reasons why, as it seems to me, the ship, and not the cargo owner, should bear the part of the loss represented by the freight upon the damaged goods from Charleston, the place of shipment, to New York, the substituted place of delivery.
The general rule is that, in case of a loss of the goods, the carrier is liable to the shipper for their market value at the point of destination, less the amount of the freight charges due for their transportation; and the same rule applies where the goods are merely damaged, and are delivered in their damaged condition, with the qualification that the value of the goods in their damaged condition is to be deducted. Presumably the cost of transportation to the place of destination is an element of the market value of the goods at that place; and when the shipper recovers their market value, or upon the basis of their market value at that place, he obtains full indemnity. As the shipper thus gets the benefit of the transportation, the carrier should not lose the freight. In the present case, however, the general rule is deflected by the peculiar condition in the bill of lading. That condition was as follows:
“It is further mutually agreed that in case any loss, detriment, or damage is done to or sustained by-any of the goods or property herein receipted for during transportation, * ⅜ ⅜ in ascertaining the amount of such damage the same shall be computed at the value or cost of said goods or property at the time and place of shipment.”
Obviously, this clause cannot be construed literally, as it would be preposterous to suppose that the parties intended that, in case of a partial or even a trifling damage, the loss should be estimated at the whole value or cost of the goods. In reason it must mean either that the damage recoverable shall not exceed the cost or value of the goods at ■the time.and place of shipment, or, alternatively, that as a basis for computing the damages their cost or value at the place of shipment is to be substituted for their market value at the place of destination. The language is .more consistent with the latter meaning. The clause was probably inserted for the benefit of both parties, and to relieve either from the chances of an- excessive loss arising by abnormal fluctuations in the market value of the goods occurring after the time of shipment, and whereby the market value at the time of delivery might be much higher or much lower than at the time of shipment, or than ordinarily. Reading it as intended to eliminate an element of uncertainty in estimating possible loss, it can be given due effect without burdening the shipper with the cost of the transportation of the goods. Under a bill of lading like the present the shipper’s loss *693is fairly measured by the difference between the cost or value of the goods at the time and place of shipment and their value in their damaged condition at the place of delivery, together with the expenses incurred for their transportatioh. " The carrier really obtains the benefit of the transportation, and the shipper does not, because, applying this rule of damages, the carrier is allowed the value of the damaged goods at their place of delivery. There is no justice in requiring the shipper to pay.for a benefit which inures wholly to the carrier.