Court Opinion

ID: 9830427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:12:13.164065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:22.168764
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is urgently insisted by appellant in its motion for rehearing that the court erred in holding that the trial court did not commit error in refusing its special charge to the effect that, if the jury should believe that it exercised due negligence to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy, then the defendant would not be liable for any unseaworthiness thereof, even though the same were in fact unseaworthy; basing its contention upon the Harter Act, set out in our original opinion. We think the evidence in this case showed that the injury to the goods resulted from the latent defects in the ship, rendering it unseaworthy, and that this condition existed before its departure from New York. This being true, the charge requested ought not to have been given; for the reason that the third section of the Harter Act provides that, if the owner of the vessel shall exercise due diligence to make the same in all respects seaworthy, etc., then its owner shall not be responsible for damages or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation, or in the management of said vessel, or for losses arising from dangers of *287the sea, acts of G.od, public enemies, or inherent defect or vice in the thing carried, etc. If the injury to the goods had resulted from any of the causes as designated in said section of the statute, then appellant’s contention would have been correct, and the charge requested should have been given. See Wuppermann v. The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, 18 Sup. Ct. 753, 42 L. Ed. 1181, wherein Mr. Justice White, in discussing this statute, after quoting the third section thereof, makes use of the following language: “The exemption of the owners or charterers from loss resulting from ‘faults or errors in navigation,’ or in the management of the vessel, and for certain other designated causes, in no way implies that, because the owner is thus exempted when he has been duly diligent, thereby the law has also relieved him from the duty of furnishing a seaworthy vessel. The immunity from risks of a described character, where due diligence has been used, cannot be so extended as to cause the statute to say that the owner when he has been duly diligent is not only exempted in accordance with the tenor of the statute from the limited and designated risks which are named therein, but is also relieved, as respects every claim of every other description, from the duty of furnishing a seaworthy ship.”
In the instant case, under the above holding it devolved, as we think, upon appellant (since the injuries did not result to the goods from any of the designated causes which would render it exempt under the third section of the Harter act, the only section of said act affecting domestic shipments) not only to exercise due diligence to furnish a seaworthy vessel, but it became its absolute duty to do so; for which reason we think the charge was properly refused.
[8] It is also insisted by appellant in said motion that the court erred in overruling its seventh assignment, wherein it complained of the action of the trial court in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to find in its favor as to the Ehrlich and Sinnock shipment, contending that these goods • came within the classification enumerated in article 4281 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2942); said shipment consisting of sterling silver novelties, improperly billed as hardware. The statute referred to provides, in substance, that if any shipper of certain articles, which are specifically named, and among which are embraced silver novelties and goods manufactured of silver, “shall lade the same as freight or baggage on any vessel without at the time giving notice to its owner, master or agent of the true character and value of the property shipped, and having the same entered upon the bill of lading therefor, the master and owner of such vessel shall not be liable as carriers thereof in any form or manner.” We think this charge was properly refused for two reasons, if no other: First, because we believe that the burden of proof was upon the appellant under this statute to show a failure on the part of the shipper to- give the notice required, and cause the entry to be made in the bill of lading; and there was no satisfactory proof showing that this burden had been discharged by appellant. So far as the record discloses, this notice may have been given to appellant. It is true that the box was marked “hardware.” It is also true that the agent of the express company who delivered the goods to appellant testified that he did not know what the box contained, but he did not state that he so told Wilson, the agent of appellant who received same, and the latter was not called as a witness. The evidence, therefore, does not negative the idea that appellant may have received notice in some other way. Appellant pleaded this want of notice as a defense in avoidance of its liability. This being true, the burden of proof devolved upon it to show such want of notice. Matters of avoidance must be proven by the party pleading same. See Holloman v. White, 41 Tex. 61. “The general rule is that whoever has the affirmative of the issue as determined by the pleadings, or, where there are no pleadings, by the nature of the investigation, has the burden of proof. It never shifts from that party, either in civil or criminal cases. Where a party erroneously assumes the burden of proof as to a particular allegation, or the burden of evidence as to a particular fact, the mistake will not be corrected in the appellate court.” 16 Oyc. 926B.
[9] “Where a party has assumed the burden of proving a fact, he will not on appeal be heard to say for the first time that the burden was on the other party.” 2 Cyc. 675; Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 44 S. W. 326.
So that, if in fact the burden did not rest upon appellant, still, where he has assumed it in his pleadings in the trial court, he cannot be heard to say that the burden is not upon him upon appeal, as indicated by the authorities just quoted.
[10] But, irrespective as to whether we are correct as to this, let us concede, for the sake of argument, that the burden of proof to show notice to appellant of the character and value of the shipment was on appellee, and that he has failed to show such notice, and therefore that the appellant is not lia-dle in any form or manner as carrier, as the statute indicates; does this, perforce, relieve it of all liability in every other capacity or respect? We think not Prior to the enactment of the statute in question, the defendant, as carrier, would have been liable to plaintiffs for any loss, except such as was . attributable to the act of God or the public *288enemy. The statute merely relieves appellant where the notice is not given and entry made as required thereby from any liability as carrier, but does not attempt to relieve it from any duty to him as bailee. ’ It was not compelled to receive the package if the notice was not given, but, having seen proper to do so in the absence of such notice, did this voluntary acceptance! thereof impose upon it any duty? We think so. It thereby became! a private bailee for hire, and at least owed the duty to appellee of exercising ordinary care in the transportation and delivery of said goods. Failing in this, it was certainly liable to the owner for negligence resulting in loss or damage to the shipment.
This doctrine is laid down in the case of Wheeler v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 125 N. Y. 155, 26 N. E. 248, 21 Am. St. Rep. 729, and cases there cited. To have given the charge would have had the effect of saying to appellee: “You have seen fit to ship these goods in a box' marked hardware, without giving the statutory notice. It is true, we have received the same for the purpose of shipment, and have taken payment therefor, yet we owe you no duty whatever in regard thereto. We can convert them to our own use, throw them overboard, do as we please with them, because by your failure to give such notice you have been penalized to the extent of their value and have forfeited all rights therein.” Such a construction does not comport with honesty or fair dealing, and the courts will not give such interpretation to a statute where it appears that it is open to another and more reasonable one, and which will not defeat the ends of justice; but would seemingly accord with the purpose and object of the lawmakers. We think that Congress merely intended to relieve shipowners, under such circumstances, of liability as common carriers, leaving untouched their liability as bailees. So, having received the goods for transportation, appellant, as bailee for hire, was required to exercise ordinary care to safely transport and deliver same. A failure to do so would constitute negligence, for which it would be responsible in damages.
[11] The box containing the goods, as the evidence shows, was received by appellant in good order. Some of its contents were lost and those delivered were worthless. This made a prima facie ease against appellant, for which it must excuse itself (see Hull v. Chicago Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 510, 43 N. W. 391, 5 U. R. A. 587, 16 Am. St. Rep. 722); for the delivery of the goods at point of destination in good condition is necessary to relieve the carrier as such. Scheu v. Benedict, 116 N. Y. 510, 22 N. E. 1073, 15 Am. St. Rep. 426. Nondelivery by the carrier is prima facie evidence of want of ordinary caré, and casts upon him the burden of proof. Shenk v. Philadelphia S. P. Co., 60 Pa. 109, 100 Am. Dec. 541; Tardos v. The Toulon, 14 La. Ann. 429, 74 Am. Dec. 435. This being true, uni der the evidence an issue was left for the determination of the jury. Wherefore it would have been error to have given the peremptory charge requested.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.