Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Harris

Citations

• 67 Tex. 166
• 2 S.W. 574
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 631

Syllabus

<p>1. Public Carriers.—The doctrine once held that carriers of animals did not incur the responsibilities of common carriers, that they were private-carriers and subject only to such liabilities as the law imposed upon such bailees, or, as the contract between the parties fixed, does not obtain in in Texas. The carriers of such property are common carriers, subject to-the same responsibilities imposed by law on carriers of other property, except as this is modified by the inherent character of such property. It. folic s that a special contract which by its terms purports to exempt a railway from liability for injury in the transportation of cattle, except such as might result from the willful negligence of a railway company* can not be enforced.</p> <p>2. Same,—A common carrier can not by contract be exempted from liability for an injmy resulting from the negligence, though not willful, of itself or servants.</p> <p>3. Contract—Common Carriers.—A railway company in a suit to recover damages against it for negligence in failing to deliver cattle within a reasonable time, set up a special contract in its answer by which it was agreed that as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to recover damages for loss or injury to the cattle, the shipper should give notice in writing of his claim to the officers of the company or its nearest station agent before the cattle were removed from their place of destination, and before they were mingled with other stock. The line of railway did not exend to the point of destination, and both contracting parties understood that the carrier would transport the cattle from its own road over a connecting road. Held:</p> <p>(1) The contract was a limitation on the liability of the carrier at common law.</p> <p>(3) A limitation on the common law liability of a carrier for the proper delivery of articles to a point beyond the limits of Texas, to be recognized must be reasonable.</p> <p>(3) The reasonableness of the limitation must app