Culbreth v. Martin, 179 N.C. 678 (1920)

June 2, 1920 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

179 N.C. 678

LUCY CULBRETH v. J. J. MARTIN, doing business under the firm name of CHARLOTTE TRANSFER COMPANY, and SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, and WALKER D. HINES, Director General of Railroads.

(Filed 2 June, 1920.)

Railroads— Baggage— Negligence — Commerce—Damages—Federal Statutes.

The limitation’of recovery for the loss of baggage in interstate carriage of the passenger, by a regulation to that effect, duly filed- and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission is expressly reserved from the operation of the amendment to the Federal Statute, 9 August, 1916, eh. 301, 39 St. L., and where a verdict has been rendered in a sum in excess of one hundred dollars, it may be set aside and a judgment for the one hundred dollars entered, non obstante veridicto.

Civil actioN, tried before Bay, J., at November Term, 1919, of MacoN, upon the following issues:

“1. Did the plaintiff deliver the trunk described in the complaint to the baggage agent of the defendant, Director General, at Charlotte, for the purpose of having same transported as baggage from Charlotte, N. C., to Cornelia, Georgia? Answer: ‘Yes.’

“2. Did tbe defendant, Director General, negligently fail to transport and deliver said trunk ? Answer: ‘Yes.’

“3. What damage, if any, bas plaintiff sustained by reason of tbe defendant’s failure to transport and deliver said^ trunk ? Answer: ‘$100.’ ”

Tbe following is taken from tbe brief of tbe counsel for tbe plaintiff: “Upon tbe coming in of tbe verdict tbe plaintiff tendered judgment for $700 and costs. No tender of any bind bas been made by tbe defendants up to that time. Tbe defendant then tendered judgment for $100 and tbe costs, and tbis judgment was signed by tbe court non obstanti veredicto, be being of tbe opinion tbat as a matter of law tbat tbe defendant could not recover exceeding $100 on account of tbe stipulation in tbe baggage tariff. Tbe plaintiff excepted to tbe judgment as signed.”

Tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

It appears in tbe record tbat tbe judgment signed by tbe judge was for $700, but tbat tbis was a mistake, and tbat tbe judgment should bave been signed for $100 is admitted in tbis Court by counsel for plaintiff in tbeir brief.

T. J. Johnston and Jones & Jones for plaintiff.

J. Frank Ray and Martin, Rollins & Wright for defendant.

Brown, J.

It is admitted tbat there is a limitation of liability to $100, but the plaintiff contends tbat under the act of Congress of 4 March, 1915, known as the Cummings Amendment, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of damages of $700. It appears tbat tbis statute was amended on 9 August, 1916, cb. 301, 39 Statute L, 441, as follows: “Provided, however, tbat the provisions hereof respecting liability for full actual loss, damage, or injury, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or recovery or representation, or agreement, or a lease as to value, and declaring any such limitation to be unlawful and void, shall not apply, first, to baggage carried on passenger trains or boats or trains, or boats carrying passengers,” etc., and in said amendment it is provided tbat the carrier might limit its liability by filing schedules with the Interstate Commerce Commission, as was done in tbis case.

We agree with tbe judge below tbat tbe act of Congress of 4 March, 1915, as amended, expressly exempts baggage from its provisions, requiring tbe payment of full actual damage in case of loss of baggage. Tbe limitation of liability of one hundred dollars contained in tbe tariff filed with Interstate Commerce Commission and duly approved by tbe Director General, in effect at tbe time of tbe loss of tbe baggage, governs tbis case and restricts tbe plaintiff’s recovery to $100.

Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court for $100 is

Affirmed.