OCR Text |
Show Liabilities ol Coiumou Car-I Car-I riers. Washington, 22. Justice Strong's full opinion rendering tbe supreme court decision in the case of certain Louisville banks against Adams' express ex-press company ib highly important. As common carriers, Adams' express company wore sued for money packages pack-ages loat by a railroad accident and fire on tho Louisville and Nashville road. The defenco was that the receipt re-ceipt giveu by the Southern express company stipulated that tbe said company and its connections should not be held liable for loss by tbe dangers of railroad transportation or ro. jluo court ueiow gnw juuy-ment juuy-ment for the company. The supreme court reverses this judgment and saya the delendants' were common carriers. car-riers. They were not lees such he cause they had stipulated for a more restricted liability than would have been theirs had their receipt contained con-tained only a contract to carry - and deliver. What their liabilities were is to be determined by the nature of their business, not by tho contract they made respecting tho liabilities which should attend it. Having taken up the occupation its fixed local character could not be thrown oft by any declaration or stipulation stipula-tion that they should not be considered con-sidered such carriers. The duty of a common carrier is to transport and deliver safely. His employers are by law iusured against all failure to perform this duty, except such failure as may be caused by a public enemy or by tbe act of God. By special contract with his employers he may to some extent be excused if the nmuauous to nis respousiumiy stipulated stipu-lated for, are in the judgment of the law reasonable and not inconsistent with- sound publio policy. It is agreed, however, that he cannot by any contract with his customere relieve re-lieve himself from responsibility for his own negligence or that of his servants, ser-vants, and this because such a contract con-tract is unreasonable and contrary to legal policy. So much - has been finally determined in tbe Railroad Company vs. Lockwood, (17 Wall, 357) but can be by contract made with those who entrust property to him for carriage and delivery, a coo-tract coo-tract made at" the time he receives the property secure to himself exemption ex-emption from responsibility for the consequences of the negligence of a railroad company or its agenti not owned or controltd by them, but which he employs in the transportation? transporta-tion? This question is not answered in the Lockwood case. It ia raised here, or rather, tbe question is presented, pre-sented, whether a common carrier does relievo himself from the conse-: quences of such negligence by a stipulation that he shall not be liable for loss by fire. On this point it is said that the carrier is responsible for the conduct ot the agerx-y employed in the carriage, and that he cannot relieve himself in such a way. |