Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 109 Wash. 481
• 186 P. 852
• 10 A.L.R. 337
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 890

Syllabus

<p>Carriers (8-1)—Of Goods—Refusal to Accept—-Liability. It is primarily a carrier’s duty to accept a shipment and furnish suitable equipment under a requested optional service, published in its tariff, but it is not liable if its failure was due to an unprecedented shortage of cars and conditions which it could not reasonably anticipate or avoid.</p> <p>Carriers (7)—Contracts—Tariffs. An interstate carrier can enter into no contract of transportation not expressly authorized in its published tariffs.</p> <p>Same (8-1)-—Refusal to Accept Goods—Pleading—Defenses. In a shipper’s action for damages to apples frozen in transit, the carrier’s answer states a good defense, where it appears that its published tariffs provided an optional service, one at shipper’s risk and the other at a higher rate at the risk of the company, which latter required refrigerator ears, that, upon plaintiff’s demand for such service, the company used due diligence to obtain refrigerator cars, but from unprecedented conditions was unable to do so, whereupon plaintiff elected to accept the other service, which called for box cars, stoves, and a shipper’s attendant, and signed a contract for such service in which he assumed all risks, and that the shipper’s loss was due to failure to properly prepare the car and to the negligence of his agent attending the shipment.</p>