Annunziato v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

City of New York Municipal Court

Annunziato v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

142 Misc. 327, 253 N.Y.S. 626, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521

DecidedNovember 16, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 327 (Annunziato v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Annunziato v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 142 Misc. 327, 253 N.Y.S. 626, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Cragen,

Official Referee. The duty of a common carrier of carload shipments in interstate commerce is simply that of transportation. The shipper is obliged to see that the shipment is properly loaded and braced so that it may be transported in a satisfactory manner. (Lewis v. New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., 210 N. Y. 429.)

It follows that, as the duty of the carrier is “ merely one of transportation,” it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the car was properly packed and braced so that the transportation could be made in a satisfactory manner, and that the goods or merchandise was “ in good condition at the time of shipment.” (Orunsten v. New York Cent. R. Co., 179 App. Div. 465, at p. 467.)

The evidence in this case falls far short of this proof. On the contrary, the more apparent disinterested evidence is to the effect that the lugs were in a damaged condition prior to the purchase at the sale by plaintiff, and, in the absence of proof of further damage while in defendant’s custody, there can be no recovery by plaintiff. Otherwise speaking, the court cannot draw the inference or deduction that the grapes were further damaged while in defendant’s possession. It might be reasonably urged that such is undoubtedly the fact, but, assuming this to be so, the damage, if any, is incapable of a mathematical calculation.

Judgment for the defendant on the merits.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cragen,

Official Referee. The duty of a common carrier of carload shipments in interstate commerce is simply that of transportation. The shipper is obliged to see that the shipment is properly loaded and braced so that it may be transported in a satisfactory manner. (Lewis v. New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., 210 N. Y. 429.)

It follows that, as the duty of the carrier is “ merely one of transportation,” it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the car was properly packed and braced so that the transportation could be made in a satisfactory manner, and that the goods or merchandise was “ in good condition at the time of shipment.” (Orunsten v. New York Cent. R. Co., 179 App. Div. 465, at p. 467.)

The evidence in this case falls far short of this proof. On the contrary, the more apparent disinterested evidence is to the effect that the lugs were in a damaged condition prior to the purchase at the sale by plaintiff, and, in the absence of proof of further damage while in defendant’s custody, there can be no recovery by plaintiff. Otherwise speaking, the court cannot draw the inference or deduction that the grapes were further damaged while in defendant’s possession. It might be reasonably urged that such is undoubtedly the fact, but, assuming this to be so, the damage, if any, is incapable of a mathematical calculation.

Judgment for the defendant on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 327, 253 N.Y.S. 626, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annunziato-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nynyccityct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack