Pierce v. Southern Pacific Co.
Citations
- 120 Cal. 156
- 52 P. 302
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 728
Syllabus
<p>Common Carriers—Limitation of Obligations—Presumption as to Law of Another State.—In the absence of proof, it is to be presumed that the law of another state upon the subject of the limitation of the obligations of common carriers is the same as that prescribed in sections 2174 and 2175 of the Civil Code of this state.</p> <p>Id.—Stipulation Limiting Liability—Construction—Negligenoe—Ordering Orange Trees Shipped by Northern Route—Loss from Freezing. A stipuliU ion in a shipment of orange trees from Florida, by the terms of which the shippers insured the railroad lines “against claims by loss or damage which may be incurred by reason of delay in transportation, or any other cause arising out of responsibility as master over its agents or servants (gross or wanton negligence excepted) incident to said shipments,” whatever may be its import as to the exception of gross or wanton negligence, cannot be held to mean anything more than that the railroad company was not to be liable for the mere negligence or misconduct of its agents and servants, and cannot be construed as extending to or embracing loss or damage caused solely by compliance of its agents and servants with an order of the railroad corporation itself directing them to ship the orange trees from Florida over a northern route through Utah and Nevada, as the result of which they were frozen in transit.</p> <p>Id.—Limitation of Liability as to Damage—Invoice—Price at Place of Shipment—Construction — Absence of Invoice—Value of Trees— Measure of Damages. — The ordinary measure of damages for breach of a carrier’s obligation is the value of the goods at the time and place of delivery; but this liability may be limited by special contract, and where there is a special contract making the invoice price of trees at the point of shipment the measure of damages, such contract must receive a reasonable construction, and where no’invoice price was actually made out and agreed upon, that expression must be understood
Judges: Searls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court· 1949-05-13· cited 113×
- Anchor Line (Henderson Bros.), Ltd. v. JacksonSecond Circuit· 1925-11-09· cited 39×
- Muelder v. Western Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1970-05-28· cited 16×
- McLaughlin v. Ætna Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court· 1922-12-29· cited 14×
- Wheeler v. OppenheimerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-04-04· cited 13×
- Nevada-Douglas Consolidated Copper Co. v. BerryhillNevada Supreme Court· 1938-02-05· cited 9×
- Red Men's Fraternal Accident Ass'n of America v. MerrittSuperior Court of Delaware· 1921-10-14· cited 8×
- Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. A. Peterson Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Colorado· 1915-01-15· cited 6×
- Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. GrayFifth Circuit· 1933-02-16· cited 4×
- Easton v. George Wostenholm & Son, Ltd.Ninth Circuit· 1905-05-01· cited 3×
- Blackwell v. Southern Pac. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1910-12-19· cited 3×
- Wilson v. Illinois Central RailroadTennessee Supreme Court· 1914-04-15· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.