76 N.J.L. 608 | N.J. | 1908
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This action was brought by Mrs. Atkinson to recover-damages from the defendant company for the loss, through its negligence, of a trunk and contents, entrusted by her to it for shipment from Ocean Grove, in this state, to her home in Brooklyn, New York. At the trial the defendant company admitted liability, but contended that the amount of the recovery against it should be limited to $100, notwithstanding the fact that the value of the property lost considerably exceeded that sum. This contention was rested upon the fact that at the time it received the trunk the company delivered to the plaintiff a bill of lading which recited, among other things, that its charge for the transportation thereof was based upon a gross valuation not exceeding $100, and contained an express agreement between the shipper
The first question which the case presents for consideration is whether a contract, which fixes the value of goods shipped at a price less than their real worth, and limits the liability of the carrier for a loss resulting from its own negligence, to the value thus fixed, is valid; for, if it is not, then the instruction complained of, so far as it was erroneous, was harmful to the plaintiff, not to the defendant, and affords no ground for reversing the judgment.
Having determined that a contract between a carrier and shipper which fixes the value of the goods shipped at a sum less than their real worth, and limits the liability of the carrier in case of their loss to the amount so fixed, is binding upon the shipper, we take up the consideration of the court’s instruction to the jury in this case. It is insisted on behalf
We are not required to pass upon the soundness of this proposition advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in error, for the trial court in its instruction to the jury did not make the plaintiff’s ignorance of the contents of the paper which was delivered to her the test of her liability under it. The jury were told that even if she knew that the rate charged for the transportation of her trunk was based upon a value of $100, the company would still be liable for the full value of the goods, in the absence of any assent by her to the restriction of liability. And further, that even if she knew of the words (that is, the words contained in the paper limiting the carrier’s liability), still it would remain a question as to whether she assented to the bill of lading as a contract. The purport of this instruction, as it seems to us, is that a shipper who knows that the charge made by the carrier for the transporting of his goods is based upon a value placed upon them which is below their actual worth, that this value is stated in the receipt which is given to him by the carrier, and that the receipt contains a stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability to the amount thus stated, may accept the receipt in silence, and afterwards, in case the goods are lost, may deny that he assented to the valuation which was made the basis of the ■carrier’s charge, may repudiate the limitation of liability, and recover the full amount of his loss.
It is held by the best-considered authorities that if the shipper is guilty of fraud or imposition, by misrepresenting to the ■carrier the value of the goods consigned by him, he destroys his claim to full indemnity, and the reason of it is that by his act he has deprived the carrier of his right to be compensated in proportion to the value of the goods, and the conse
We are of opinion that the instruction complained of was erroneous, and that, for this reason, the judgment under review must be reversed.
For affirmance—None.
For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Bergen, Voorhees, Min-turn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 15.