Phœnix Pot Works v. Pittsb. Etc. R.

Citations

• 139 Pa. 284
• 20 A. 1058
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 989

Syllabus

<p>(a) Goods were shipped by a common carrier, under a bill of lading stipulating that they were carried at the owner’s risk of breakage, chafing, etc., and under a standing release of all damage “ from any cause not the result of collision of trains, or of cars being thrown from the track while in transit: ”</p> <p>1. Thfere being evidence tending to show that the goods were carefully packed when shipped, that plaintiff’s goods so packed uniformly reached the place of delivery in good condition, and that the goods in controversy when at their destination were injured, it was for the jury to say whether the injury was not the result of defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>2. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, under the terms of the release, he was not restricted to proof of such gross negligence as would result in collision or derailment; and, in the absence of such proof, the question whether it was guilty,of negligence in the transportation of -the goods • was a question of fact for the jury.</p>