The Loss and Damage Review Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 edition. Excerpt: ...whether the agreed valuation of $50.00 applied to the conversion of goods by an employee of the carrier for his own benefit. The court said: "Agreements of limited liability are upheld where the loss is due to ordinary negligence or to the wrongful act of another (Boyle v. Bush Terminal R. R. Co., 210 N. Y. 389, 392, 104 N. E. 933; Boston & Maine R. R. v. 'Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, 58 L. Ed. 1141); but the law remains that the carrier may "not claim a limitation of liability to a certain amount for its affirmative wrongdoing (Magnin v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 35, 20 Am. Rep. 442) when the plaintiff makes proof thereof (VVamsley v. Atlas S. S. Co., 68 N. Y. 533, 61 N. E. 896). A distinction between a limitation of liability for conversion and for negligence is clearly shown in the cases. The distinction must be borne in mind between a limitation of liability and an agreed valuation in case of liability. When it is urged that the limitation of value should not be applied to any case of theft by the carrier's employees, for the reason that the company is liable for such acts as if the company had been the thief (Adams Express Co. v. B. & VV. Co., 35 App. D. C. 208, 31 L. R. A. N. S. 309), the argument loses sight of the distinction suggested. W'hen the agent acts within the scope of his employment in taking possession of the shipment 'in legal effect it was the same as if the defendant, personified, had taken it' (Vann, J., in Hasbrouck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 363, 373, 95 N. E. 808, 812, 35 L. R. A. N. S. 537, Ann. Cas. 19l2D, 150), but the liability may exist and the valuation of the shipment in case of liability may be agreed upon when the rates for transportation are based...