Smith v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Citations

• 223 Pa. 118
• 72 A. 264
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 489

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Common carriers — Negligence—Diversion from proper course of transit — Flood.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover for the loss of several carloads of grain by a flood, an averment in the statement of claim that the cars were diverted from the usual and proper course of transit by placing them in a yard particularly named, is not borne out by the proofs where the undisputed evidence is that for seven years prior to the flood all consignments of grain for delivery at the city in question, unless specially consigned to consignees who had private sidings, had been placed in the yard particularly designated for inspection and.re-consignment, that this usage was well understood and acquiesced in, and that the plaintiff knew of it and expected the cars to be placed there.</p> <p>2. In an action against a railroad company to recover for carloads of grain lost in a flood, the case is for the jury where the evidence shows that the cars were stored in a yard near a river, that as the flood came on the yard master relied on predictions of the weather bureau and the manager of a river coal company that the flood would not be beyond a certain height, while he knew that floods of a much greater height had taken place four times in five preceding years.</p>