This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
In contracts with common carriers, a provision is frequently made for notice of injury to the property which is transported. If such provisions are fair and reasonable,1 full effect is given thereto.2 In the absence of specific statutory provisions to the contrary,3 conditions requiring notice of loss within a specified time are construed liberally in favor of the shipper,4 especially if the carrier is not deprived of an opportunity to make the investigation necessary to protect his own interests. Such a condition has been held not to apply where the injuries were not apparent when the property was delivered,5 or where the carrier delivered the wrong property to the consignee, and the consignee did not discover such mistake within the time limited.6 If the injuries are not discovered within the time specified, it has been held that the shipper is not bound to give notice within a reasonable time after discovering the injuries.7 Conditions requiring notice have been restricted to the kind of injury or damage specified in the contract.8 Such a condition has been held not to apply to damage sustained because the railway refused to comply with a provision of the contract for transportation, giving to the shipper the privilege of removing the goods at an intermediate station,9 or to special damages caused by delay,10 or to damages arising from the fact that the carrier refused to perform the contract and return the goods to the shipper at the place from which they were shipped,11 or to incidental damages,12 such as the loss of an opportunity to sell the goods or for shrinkage in weight or cost of preserving the goods,13 or to damages arising from the wrongful act of the carrier in converting the goods and selling them.14 In the absence of statutory provisions which in effect prevent waiver,15 such a condition does not apply to cases in which the carrier knows of the injury,16 as where animals have died while in the possession of the carrier;17 nor to cases in which the carrier could have discovered the injury if it had performed its contract,18 as where the carrier was bound to unload the property, and the injury would have been discovered if it had done so.19 • Notice of injury while the goods are in transit has been held to be sufficient,20 especially if the injured articles were examined by representatives of the carrier.21
13 Hall v. Sims. 106 Ala. 501, 17 So. 534.
14 See Sec. 735. et seq.
15 Ollinger & Bruce Dry Dock Co v. Gibbony, - Ala. -, 81 So. 18; Costan-tino v. Lodjiodice, - Conn. -, 105 Atl 465; Reynor v. Maekrill, 181 Ia 210, 1 A. L R. 523, 164 N. W. 335.
16 Reynor v. Maekrill, 181 Ia. 210, 1 A. L. R. 523, 164 N W. 335.
17 Ollinger & Bruce Dry Dock Co. v. Gibbony, - Ala. -, 81 So. 18; Costan-tino v. Lodjiodice, - Conn. -, 105 Atl. 465.
18 Reynolds v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., - Kan -, 185 Pac. 1051
19 Reynolds v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., - Kan. -, 185 Pac. 1051.
20 Reynolds v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., - Kan. -, 185 Pac. 1051.
1 See Sec. 735 et seq.
2 United States. Chesapeake & O.R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 242 U. S. 142, 61 L ed 207; Olson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R Co, 250 Fed. 372.
Iowa. Erisman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R Co., 180 Ia 759, 163 N. W. 627.
New Jersey. Olivit Bros. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 88 N. J. L. 241, 96 Atl 582.
North Carolina. Taft v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 174 N. Car. 211, 93 S. E 752.
North Dakota. Shark v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 37 N. D 342, 164 N. W 30
Oklahoma. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co v. Pickens, 51 Okla. 455, 151 Pac. 1055;
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Craig,
- Okla. -, 157 Pac. 87; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lynn, - Okla. -, 161 Pac. 1058; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brightwell, - Okla. -, 162 Pac. 484; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Gray, - Okla. -, 165 Pac. 157.
South Dakota. Strommer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 38 S. D. 368, 161 N. W. 346.
3 See Sec. 737.
4 Emery v. Wabash R. Co., 183 Ia. 687, 166 N. W. 600; Snyder v. King, 199 Mich. 345, 165 N. W. 840; Boyd v. King, 201 Mich. 436, 167 N. W. 901; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt,
- Okla. -, 171 Pac 718; J. Van Lind-ley Nursery Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 109 S. Car. 433, 96 S. E. 221.
For various questions of construction, see:
United States. Olson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 250 Fed. 372.
Illinois. Babbitt v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 285 III. 267, 120 N. E. 803.
Kansas. Ott v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 102 Kan. 254, 169 Pac. 957.
Mississippi. Pickle v. Receivers of St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 115 Miss. 322, 75 So. 448; Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 116 Miss. 99, 76 So. 686.
North Carolina. Gilikin v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 174 N. Car. 137, 93 S. E. 469.
5 Eoff v. Scullin, 120 Ark. 452, 179 S. W. 663.
6 Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Reb-man, 120 Va. 71, 90 S. E. 629.
7 Eoff v. Scullin, 129 Ark. 452, 179 S. W. 663.
8 Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Luke, 169 Ky. 560, 184 S. W. 1132 [rehearing denied, 171 Ky. 50, 186 S. W. 875]; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Murphy, 182 Ky. 136, 206 S. W. 268; McElwain v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 101 Neb. 484, 1 A. L. R. 533, 163 N. W. 845; Dowling v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 108 S. Car. 186, 93 S. E. 863.
9 Cincinnati, N. O & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Luke, 169 Ky. 560, 184 S. W. 1132 [rehearing denied, 171 Ky. 50, 186 S. W. 875].
10 Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Peters, 72 Fla. 311, 73 So. 151.