Morville v. United Parcel Service

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1983 No. Civ. No. 30193Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A carrier's limitation of liability in a contract with a consignor is binding on the owner of the goods when the carrier has no notice of restrictions on the consignor's authority, and the owner fails to present evidence of a willful tort to overcome the limitation.

Issues

Whether a consignor has the authority to bind an owner to a carrier's limitation of liability contract.
Whether a carrier's limitation of liability applies to a claim of conversion when no evidence of a willful tort is presented.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since either the consignor or consignee could consent to the limitation of liability, Scriptomatic’s consent is sufficient.”

“A consignor with authority to deliver goods to a carrier for shipment has the authority to enter into a special contract limiting liability.”

“A review of the declarations submitted by Morville in opposition to UPS’ motion for summary judgment demonstrates no factual allegations of conversion or wilful tort.”

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J. Plaintiff (Morville) sought damages from defendants Scriptomatic, Inc., (Scriptomatic) and United Parcel Service (UPS) for breach of contract, negligence and conversion for the loss of unique and irreplaceable mailing lists. The trial court granted UPS’ motion for summary judgment.1

[554]Facts

Morville is a mail order postage stamp dealer whose sales are accomplished by advertising in national and international publications. It develops mailing lists from responses of interested buyers and continuously uses and updates these lists.

Morville orally contracted with Scriptomatic to convert their 2,450-name mailing list to cards for use in Scriptomatic’s addressing machines. Morville alleges the contract provided Scriptomatic would have an agent personally pick up and return the mailing list and cards. Scriptomatic delivered the list and cards to UPS for shipment and the package was lost. The contract between UPS and Scriptomatic included a $100 limitation of liability unless excess value was declared. The package in question was delivered to UPS without a declaration of added value.

Morville does not contest the existence of the contract between Scriptomatic and UPS but asserts it is void, and does not limit UPS’ liability for conversion. We disagree and affirm.

Discussion

The general rule is the carrier is liable for loss unless the consignor accompanies the freight and retains exclusive control (Civ. Code, § 2194).2 Similarly, the carrier cannot limit its liability absent a special contract (§ 2174).3 For a special contract to be binding, section 21764 requires knowledge of its terms. (Muelder v. Western Greyhound Lines (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 319 [87 Cal.Rptr. 297]; Hischemoeller v. Nat. Ice etc. Storage Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 318 [294 P.2d 433]; 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Personal Property, § 135.)

Morville first seeks to void the special contract limiting UPS’ liability to $100 by interpreting section 2176 to require consent by both consignor and consignee. No authority for the proposition is advanced, and we find none. [555]

Morville v. United Parcel Service

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief