133 Iowa 522 | Iowa | 1907
On the evening of May 25, 1903, plaintiff delivered to defendant at Anna, 111., four hundred and eighty crates of strawberries for shipment to Des Moines, this State. Defendant furnished for the purpose a refrigerator car, and the crates of berries were placed therein by its direction. That it was intended and expected that the car should be properly supplied with ice by defendant before being started on its journey, and that it should in like manner be re-iced en route as might be required, is not the subject of dispitte. It is the claim of plaintiff that, although the berries were fresh, sound, and in good shipable condition at the time of the loading at Anna, when the car arrived in Des Moines on the morning of May 27th, and on being opened, it was found that the berries were wholly spoiled and valueless. The negligence alleged is in failing to properly ice the car before being, started and while en route. Defendant, in answer, admits the receipt by it as a common carrier of the berries; denies that such berries were in good shipable condition; and denies negligence in respect of the icing of the car. On coming in of the verdict the defendant filed a motion for judgment non■ obstante, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to make out a case of negligence; also and, subject thereto, a motion for new trial on the same ground. Both motions were overruled, and this appeal followed the entry of judgment on the verdict.
The car was arranged for refrigeration purposes by four ice bunkers, two at each end. The bunkers were loaded from the top of the car through trapdoors, and each would hold from one thousand two hundred to one thousand five hundred pounds of ice. The trapdoors were intended to be air-tight when closed. There was evidence for plaintiff tending to show that, when the car left Anna, the ice bunkers were not over half full, that the attention of defendant’s agent was directed to the situation, and that, on being told that the car ought to be re-iced before leaving, he responded that there was not time, and that he would have it redced at Centralia, thirty miles away. The car was routed via Chicago, and arrived in Des Moines about twelve hours late, due, it is conceded, to matters connected with railway operation, and not the fault of defendant, or constituting negligence on its part.
The evidence introduced by defendant was to the effect that the car was iced to its full capacity just before leaving Anna; and that the bunkers were inspected just before noon the next day in Chicago, and the ice replenished; two thousand pounds being used which filled each bunker to its full capacity. There was also evidence to the effect that refrigeration is affected by damp weather. Such is the fact situation as presented by the evidence in the record. Now, the defendant knew the character of the shipment, and, upon receipt, it became its duty to exercise the care and diligence necessary to protect it. “ A carrier’s duty is not limited to the transportation of goods delivered for carriage. He must exercise such diligence as is required by law to protect the goods from destruction and injury resulting from conditions which, in the exercise of due care, may be averted or counteracted. He must guard the goods from destruction or injury by the elements; from the effects of delays; indeed, from every source of injury which he may avert, and which, in the exercise of care and ordinary intelligence, may be known or anticipated.” Beard v. Railway, 79 Iowa, 518.
Where, therefore, a carrier undertakes to carry perishable commodities in refrigerator cars, it is its duty to pro
A further finding that the destruction of the berries was due to a lack of refrigeration was not only warranted, but could not well have been avoided. Eor the plaintiff, there was evidence to the effect tha^ with proper care, the fruit would have been in merchantable condition upon reaching Des Moines, and this, even though the time consumed in transit had been tripled. This evidence stands in the record undisputed.
We conclude that the motion for new trial was rightly denied, and the ruling and judgment is affirmed.