United States Horse Shoe Co. v. American Express Co.

Citations

• 250 Pa. 527
• 95 A. 706
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 982

Syllabus

<p>Common carriers — Express companies — Shipping livestock— Negligence — Proof—Presumption—Evidence—Opinion evidence— Contracts limiting liability — Failure to declare value — Schedule of rates — Failure to file — Presumptive notice.</p> <p>1. In suits against transportation companies for injuries to animate property, the injury may be of such nature as to indicate violent or careless handling in course of transportation, and where the facts are sufficient to warrant such an inference, the question may be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover damages for injuries to a colt shipped by defendant company for plaintiff, the question of defendant’s negligence was properly submitted to the jury where it appeared that the colt was kept over night by defendant company in a roughly constructed stall in the basement of a barn, which several witnesses testified was an unsafe and improper place, and it appeared by the testimony of one witness that there was a hole in the floor, into which the colt might have stepped, and when found the next morning the colt’s hip was smashed and broken.</p> <p>3. In .such case it was proper for the court to admit an expression of opinion by witnesses as to the character of the place where the colt was kept, where it appeared that they had seen and were able to describe its condition.</p> <p>4. In such case where the shipment constituted interstate commerce, the carrier could have limited its liability, but it cannot be held to have done so where the value of the article shipped was neither asked nor declared, merely because the schedule of rates filed with the interstate commerce commission based the rate of carriage upon the assumed value of the articles shipped, and the rate paid was based upon the minimum valuation, where it did not appear that the schedule of rates was published at the point off shipment; the filing of the rates with the interstate Commerce Commission at Washington was not a sufficient compliance with th