CARRIER'S LIABILITY

Chronicle (Levin), 12 August 1947, Page 4

CARRIER'S LIABILITY

DAMAGE TO GOODS AGCEPTED j FOk TRANSPORT The absolute liabilitv o'f a 'carrier j for all damage suff ered by goods on the truek or in the course of transit was exemplified in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, on fFriday. The case was oiie iil vrhich1 James Stanhope Wyrill, attendant at the 'Levin Farm, proceeded against W. Capper and Son for the sum of £8 15s, being the value of a mlrror broken in the course o'f l'oading on to one of the company's , -rucks. .Counsel for. Wyrill was Mr. N. M. Thomson, while Mr. J. P. Bertram reprfesented 'Capper and Son. . The facts of the case were some-, what unusual in that r the driver of the truck had been -assisted -in thei loading opera'tions by Wyrill and two friends bf his, Gllliard and: Hitchins. .The evidence showed that the driver, Keith Henry Hudson, was in eharge of the loading operatiofts and gave directiohs as to the order in which the artiele's' shotiid be ioaded on the truck, and where they should be pladed. When the 'driver ordered the mirro'r to be lo'aded, he direeted that It bfe piaced betwebn two wlte mattresses-, • a'nd this was done by - Gilllard and; Hitchins. While being pu'shed between the mattresses the mirror broke, and the question the court had to decide was whether, under tb,e circumstances, the company as a carrier was Hable~"for the damage. It was contended by Mr. Bertram that no negligelice had been proved against the di-iver, a'nd that 'Gi-. liard and Hitchins were not, the agents of 'the company in loading the mirror, but that they had acted thro'u'ghout m'erely as friends of Wyrill. Mr. Thomson submitted that the driver was clearly in charge of the loading . operations, and having aCcepted the serv'ic'es of Gilliard and Hitchins, and having giVen directions as to what articles shoilld be loaded and how they should be pla'ced on the lorry, they had become, in law, the servants of the company. On the question of negligence, Mr. Thomson pointed out that this did not er ter into the imatter as at co'mmon law the carWer was absolutdly liable for all 'damage suff ered by goods on the tru'ck or in the course of transit, excfept,in the case of certain speciffed articles over £10 in value, and except where the carrier had exclu'ded his common law liability by notice to the customer. in this case no suCh notice had been given and the carrier was virtually the insurcr o'f the safety of the goods he had contracted to carry. In giVing judgment for Wyrill, Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., held that the compahy had accepted the services of Gilliard and Hitchins, and that the absolute liabiliry of the carrier applied 'in this particullar case, even though aetual negli'genCe had not been proved against the driver or the company. Judgment was accordingly given for the agreed value. of the mirror, £8 15s, and costs and witnesses expenses amounting to £3 7s.