Curtis v. United Transfer Co. (1914) · DecisionDepot

Curtis v. United Transfer Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jan 16, 1914 No. S.F. No. 6608.Published

Before: Lorigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Under Civil Code section 2176, whether a consignor had actual or constructive knowledge of a limitation of liability in a carriage contract is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court to decide upon demurrer.

Issues

Whether a consignor's acceptance of a receipt containing fine-print limitations on liability constitutes constructive notice as a matter of law.
Whether the determination of a consignor's knowledge of contract terms under Civil Code section 2176 is a question of fact for the jury.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“whether the acceptance of such a receipt or paper by the consignor was with knowledge of its terms or not— that is whether it was accepted with actual knowledge or under such circumstances as constituted constructive notice or knowledge in”

“the question whether a consignor, under the section, has either actual or constructive notice of the terms of limitation, is one of fact for the jury, to be determined from all the circumstances of the case.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John Hunt, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LORIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against plaintiff on refusal to amend after demurrer was sustained to her complaint. -

[113]

The judgment was affirmed by the district court of appeal for the first district and a further hearing granted by this court.

The action was to recover $414.35 as damages for the loss of a trunk and its contents delivered at the city of Oakland by plaintiff to defendant, a common carrier, for carriage to her address in the city of Berkeley.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff delivered the trunk to defendant who gave her a receipt therefor upon a printed form; that she did not read the receipt or form or know what was written or printed thereon, except that she read her name written thereon, until long after the loss of the trunk. It is then alleged that there was printed upon the said receipt a statement commencing with the words “Read Conditions of this Contract,” and limiting the liability of the defendant for .the loss of the trunk and its contents through the negligence of the defendant to the sum of fifty dollars unless otherwise specially agreed in writing and the extra risk paid for. The complaint further alleged: ‘‘ That the said statement was entirely in fine print, and that each letter of each word thereof, including the said words ‘Read Conditions of this Contract,’ was less than one-sixteenth of an inch in height and less than one-sixteénth of an inch in width; that the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of, or any reason or cause to know, the terms of the said purported contract or any thereof, or the nature or purpose of the said terms or any thereof, or that said receipt contained or purported to contain the terms of said contract of carriage, or any thereof, until long after the said loss of the said trunk and contents by the defendant. ”

The demurrer was for want of jurisdiction and want of facts.

It is provided by section 2176 of the Civil Code that “a passenger, consignor, or consignee, by accepting a ticket, bill of lading, or written contract for carriage, with a knowledge of its terms, assents ... to the limitation stated therein upon the amount of the carrier’s liability in case property ... is lost or injured. ...”

Related research

limitation of liability does not of itself amount to assent to them because the section expressly declares it shall not. In the absence of a special contract limiting the amount of the liability, the carrier would be responsible under its common law liability for the full value of the property delivered to it for carriage and loss, and while it may limit that liability by special. contract, still under the section under consideration, this is only effected when such special contract is accepted by the shipper or consignor with knowledge of the terms of limitation. Knowledge by the consignor of the limitation is essential to the legal efficacy of such a special contract; a fact upon which it can alone be sustained, whether such fact appears by evidence of express information had by him of the contents of the receipt or contract when it was received and, hence, actual notice; or whether by proof of circumstances surrounding its receipt and constituting constructive notice. If, under the section, it may be declared by the court as matter of law from the fact pleaded of the acceptance merely of a receipt embodying the terms of limitation set out in the complaint that the plaintiff thereby had constructive notice of the limitation of liability, and, hence, knowledge of it which bound her, then there was little need of the statute declaring that assent to the limitation followed only “by accepting (the paper) with a knowledge of its terms.” If she had actual knowledge of its terms when she accepted it, of course, she was bound under the provisions of the section, but under the theory of respondent if she did not have knowledge of the terms she is bound anyway, because, as matter of law, by merely accepting it she had constructive notice of its terms which amounts to the same thing. We cannot agree with this view and are satisfied that under the section, whether the acceptance of such a receipt or paper by the consignor was with knowledge of its terms or not— that is whether it was accepted with actual knowledge or under such circumstances as constituted constructive notice or knowledge in contemplation of law, was a question of fact for the jury and not a matter of law for the court. Mere acceptance is not the controlling question. The section assumes in providing what shall constitute assent that there has been an acceptance—that is the carrier delivered and the consignee received, the paper. The controlling question is, Was there

AI Brief

Synopsis

LORIGAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief