{ "id": 1524438, "name": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Slaughter", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Slaughter", "decision_date": "1907-11-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "423", "last_page": "426", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ark. 423" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "87 S. W. 99", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723270 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722813 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877128 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S. W. 29", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "77 S. W. 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 Ark. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1873811 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/35/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723270 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722813 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877128 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S. W. 29", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 396, "char_count": 7949, "ocr_confidence": 0.707, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.301981745586105e-08, "percentile": 0.3877629545197423 }, "sha256": "1329680fec50d2f4abc8850185e3fb5fcb9136f14831834d9d86760d7ef957b6", "simhash": "1:2ce078feb1087b3d", "word_count": 1337 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Slaughter." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The contract itself showed that the parties to it contemplated that the cattle were to be delivered by appellant to a connecting carrier. For it expressly limits the liability to injuries occurring on its own line, and specifies that the liability of appellant \u201cterminates upon delivery iby it of said cars to its connecting carrier.\u201d The proof showed that appellee\u2019s cattle at Wister \u201cwere delivered to the Frisco, and carried from there by them to St. Louis.\u201d This evidence was at least prima facie proof that the Frisco was a connecting carrier, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, was sufficient to warrant a finding to that effect. The court, in passing upon the evidence offered, well understood the contention of appellant that the Frisco was a connecting carrier, and the ruling indicates that the court assumed that such was the fact, without the necessity of further proof upon the subject. The court erred in giving the instruction set out in the statement, and in refusing the request asked by appellant.\nThe trial court, under the rule announced by this court in Little Rock & F. S. Ry. Co. v. Odom, 63 Ark. 326, should have confined the inquiry to the damage, if any, produced by the negligence of appellant, before the delivery of the cattle to the connecting carrier. See also Taylor v. Little Rock, M. R. & T. R. Co., 32 Ark. 393; Packard v. Taylor, 35 Ark. 402; St. Louis, I. M. & Sou. Ry. Co. v. Weakley, 50 Ark. 397; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Ernest & Bost, 77 S. W. 29, 30; and International & G. N. R. Co. v. Starts, 77 S. W. 1.\nJudgment reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Buzbee & Hicks, for appellant.", "Priddy & Chambers, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Slaughter.\nOpinion delivered November 25, 1907,\nCarrier \u2014 live .stock \u2014 liability of initial carrier.- \u2014 A stipulation in a bill of lading of live stock that the initial carrier shall not be liable, in the event of injury or loss to said stock happening beyond its own line, is valid if based upon a reduction in rate or other valid consideration.\nAppeal from Logan Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT by the court.\nThe appellee by this suit seeks to recover of appellant for damages alleged to have accrued to appellee by reason of injury to two carloads of cattle caused through the negligence of appellant in transporting same from Magazine, Arkansas, to St. Louis, Missouri, under contract with appellee. The complaint specifically sets forth the alleged negligence in transporting the cattle from Magazine, Arkansas, to Ft. Smith, Arkansas, and from Ft.- Smith, Arkansas, to St. Louis, Missouri, and also specifically sets forth the damages sustained, amounting in the aggregate to $525, for which judgment was prayed.\nThe appellant in its answer admitted the contract with appellee for the shipment of cattle, and alleged that appellant was only liable under the contract for damage done through its negligence while the cattle were in its possession, denied that any damage was done through its negligence, and set forth that the cattle were delivered to i'ts connecting carrier, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, at Wister, Indian Territory, in as good condition as when received by defendant at Magazine, Arkansas. The answer also denied that there was any negligence after the cattle were delivered to the connecting carrier at Wister, \u00a1but alleged that appellant was not liable for such negligence, if it was shown.\nThe contract, as proved, was one in which the -appellant undertook for a specified rate of freight to transport appellee\u2019s cattle from Magazine, Arkansas, 'to St. Louis, Missouri, the rate being less than the rate charged for shipments at the carrier\u2019s risk. On account of the \u201creduced rate\u201d and other considerations, it was \u201cmutually agreed between 'the parties,\u201d among other things, that \u201cunder no circumstances shall the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company be held liable for any injury to or loss of the stock transported hereunder, from any cause whatsoever, happening or accruing beyond its own line, and, in the event of injury to or loss of said stock, only the carrier on whose line the injury or loss actually occurs shall be liable.\u201d\nOn the cross-examination of appellee the following occurred :\n\u201cQ. To what railroad company were your cattle delivered at Wister, Indian Territory? A. I presume to the Frisco; I don\u2019t know. I thought the whole thing was the Rock Island system. Q. You knew it was not the regular line of the Rock Island, but you thought it was a branch of it? A. I thought the Rock Island was a branch of the Frisco. Q. But you know at Wister that your cattle were delivered to the Frisco and carried from there by them to St. Louis? A. Yes, sir.\u201d\nAttorney for defendant: \u201cI desire to move the court to exclude from the consideration of the jury all the testimony of this witness as to delays, rough treatment and injury to the cattle after they left Wister, Indian Territory, and before they reached St. Louis, on the ground, as stated in my opening, that defendant, under the contract of shipment in this case, is not liable for any damages which occurred after the cattle were delivered to the connecting carrier, St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, at Wister. The court overruled defendant\u2019s motion, and the defendant excepted.\nThe record shows at another place the following:\n\u201cQ. State, Mr. Slaughter, whether you were unnecessarily delayed at any other point between Wister and Ft. Smith.\u201d Attorney for defendant: \u201cTo save frequent interruptions, may I not have the privilege of saving exceptions with reference to delays after leaving Wister without calling the court\u2019s attention to each separate objection?\u201d The court: \u201cYou may; the court understands your contention. Go ahead, Mr. Slaughter.\u201d\nThe appellee introduced evidence tending to show negligence in the carrier from Wister to Ft. Smith, and from Ft. Smith to St. Louis. It is conceded by appellant that it is liable, and that the judgment is correct, if it is liable for the injuries occurring on the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad.\nThe court instructed the jury as follows:\n\u201cThis is a contract of shipment from Magazine, Arkansas, to St. Louis, Missouri, and under it defendant is liable, under the proof here, for all damages, if any, sustained by the shipment from the acts of negligence charged in the complaint, if proved, or such of them as are proved, if any, anywhere from Magazine, Arkansas, to St. Louis, Missouri.\u201d\nAppellant duly saved its exceptions, and asked the following:\n\u201c3. You are instructed that under the contract of shipment in this case the defendant is not liable for any damages which may have occurred to said cattle after they were delivered to the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company at Wister, Indian Territory.\u201d This was refused, and the appellant again duly excepted.\nThe verdict and judgment were for appellee, and this appeal duly prosecuted.\nBuzbee & Hicks, for appellant.\n1. Where the contract for shipment of cattle limits the carrier\u2019s liability to damage occurring on its own line, it is not liable for damage occurring on connecting line, and the jury should be so instructed. 77 S. W. 29; Id. 1.\n2. The court erred in instructing the jury in effect that appellee could recover for damage occurring anywhere between Magazine and St. Louis. 32 Ark. 393, and cases cited; 63 Ark. 326; 50 Ark. 397.\nPriddy & Chambers, for appellee.\n1. The exemption clause in the contract was merely for the purpose of fixing the liability'as between the several carriers, and not in any way restricting the liability of the- initial carrier to the shipper. 87 S. W. 99; 1 Hutchinson on Carriers, \u00a7 240.\n2. There was no proper proof that appellant delivered the shipment to a connecting carrier \u2014 that the carrier delivering it in St. Louis was not a part of appellant\u2019s system of railroads. The court\u2019s instruction was right. \u2019" }, "file_name": "0423-01", "first_page_order": 445, "last_page_order": 448 }