Price v. Hollywood Auto Transfer & Storage Co.

[421]

HOUSER, Acting P. J.

Plaintiffs were the owners of certain furniture and furnishings which included an Italian statue which they wished to store for a time with the defendant and thereafter transport to a ranch located approximately one hundred miles from the place where plaintiffs were then residing. Both at the time the property was transported from the residence of the plaintiffs to the warehouse of the defendant, as well as after the property had been delivered at the warehouse, the plaintiffs directed the attention of the employees of the defendant who were in charge of that particular business to the statue and urged that more than ordinary care be taken in packing it for shipment to the plaintiffs’ ranch, and were uniformly assured by such employees in effect that they understood their business and that the statue would be properly packed for such transportation. After the packing had been done by the defendant and the statue had been transported to the ranch, it was discovered that it had been broken and thereby greatly damaged. The trial court found that the damage was caused by the negligence of the defendant in improperly and carelessly packing the statue, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, from which this appeal is taken.

It is first contended by the appellant that some of the findings are contradictory of other findings, and therefore that the judgment is left unsupported. On examination of the findings to which attention has been directed, it appears that, although by one statement therein contained certain general facts are found to be true, that finding is guarded by the statement, “except as otherwise herein expressly found”—thus relieving the findings as a whole from the criticism thereon advanced by appellant.

Further error is specified by the appellant in that, as alleged by it, by contract of the parties the liability of the defendant was limited, and consequently that the amount of the judgment was unauthorized. In that connection it is noted that the trial court expressly found that the contract relating to a limited liability of the defendant applied to

storage

of the goods only and “did not contemplate the relieving of the liability of defendant or the limiting of its liability on account of any failure properly to pack, repack, or deliver said statue, but the court finds that said statue was repacked and delivered by defendant upon an express