Story Case

Mr. Allen, who cultivated 5,000 acres of wheat in North Dakota, anticipated a large crop, and applied to the Northern Railway for cars. The railway company promised to have in readiness as many cars as possible, but when the time for shipment came, the cars were not at the station on time, and as a consequence, much of Mr. Allen's wheat was injured by rains. He sued the company for his loss, charging that it possessed sufficient cars, but in spite of the widely known fact that a great yield of wheat would be harvested in this region, failed to bring to this point the promised cars; and that such lack of knowledge was inexcusable in the railway company. The attorney for the company admitted that it had sufficient cars in other regions, but denied that the company was bound to know of any unusal demand that might be made by a community. Mr. Allen's attorney introduced evidence, government crop reports, as well as reports of private agencies, which indicated that an unusual harvest had been anticipated. Newspaper articles were also read, commenting on the probability of a huge crop. The company's counsel closed its case with the argument that the railway company was not liable for failure to comply with such unusual demand, in the absence of direct notice that such a crop was expected. Will Mr. Allen recover?

Ruling Court Case No. 1. William J. Crandall Vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Volume 72 Nebraska Reports, Page 542

William J. Crandall was engaged, at the town of Firth, Nebraska, in operating a mill and elevator, and of buying, selling, and shipping grain and mill products. A few years ago, the Farmer's Grain and Lumber Company was organized by a number of farmers for the purpose of dealing in grain, and since that time there had been sharp competition between the respective grain dealers. Both of these grain dealers occupied elevators situated on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. The railroad company, during a shortage of cars in 1903, furnished the rival grain dealers cars in equal numbers for shipping grain, and in addition, extra cars to Crandall, as a miller. A controversy arose over the fact that Crandall was shipping cracked corn as a mill product, and was thereby receiving more than his share of cars. The railroad company made a new ruling which gave the Farmers' Grain Company extra cars when Crandall shipped cracked corn. Out of this new ruling, this suit arose, as Crandall desired still more cars. Crandall's brief is largely devoted to the proposition that a common carrier of goods is required to provide facilities for and to receive and ship goods tendered at its stations, on payment or tender of the usual tariff rates, and that it has no right to discriminate or favor one shipper over another. But in this case, it was shown that the railroad company owned enough cars to transact the ordinary business, but that owing to the long coal strike in the east, the company had been unable to have returned to its lines a large number of its cars. Owing to these abnormal conditions, it was impossible to furnish all the cars necessary for the use, not only of Crandall, but of all other grain shippers along its lines in Nebraska.

Justice Letton rendered the opinion: "The court decided that, under these conditions, Crandall could not recover. When a common carrier has furnished itself with sufficient appliances to transport the amount of freight which may, in the usual course of events, be reasonably offered for carriage, it has done its whole duty in this regard."

Ruling Court Case No. 2. Farmers' Co-Operative Commission Vs. C. B. & Q. R. R., Volume 34 Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, Page 60

The Farmers' Co-operative Commission represented companies operating grain elevators at country stations in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, and North and South Dakota. Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, it sought an order requiring the C. B. & Q. R. R. Company to furnish cars, for the shipment of grain in bulk, that were clean, in good repair, and properly equipped with grain doors; or provide for an allowance to shippers for labor done or materials furnished in preparing cars for such loading. It was contended that the carrier observed no uniformity in the furnishing of sectional doors, boards, lath, burlap, etc., and shippers were required to repair as well as clean a large percentage of the cars sent them before loading. It was further contended that the carrier discriminated, since at large terminal points all necessary repairs were made by the company.

The Interstate Commerce Commission rendered the following decision: "A. Grain from terminal points was not sold in competition with that of the country elevator and, therefore, there is no discrimination on this ground. (1) That it was defendant's duty to furnish suitable cars for traffic, but (2) that it was not unreasonable to expect shippers to do a limited amount of cleaning and to make inexpensive repairs, but (3) that it would be impractical to fix, by order, any allowance to be paid shippers therefor; (4) that carriers should specify in their tariffs what materials they would furnish, which should be uniform and adequate; (5) carriers practice at terminal points with reference to preparing cars, not found to be unjustly discriminatory.

"B. It is the duty of carriers to furnish cars suitable to transport in safety traffic which they hold themselves out to carry. This duty is not fulfilled when a carrier furnishes a car, upon reasonable request of a shipper, which requires repairing to prevent leakage of grain in transit.

"C. In the very nature of things, the shipper who loads the car can prepare it for lading to better advantage than can anyone else. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect the shipper to sweep a car or do a reasonable amount of cleaning, or to make some minor and inexpensive repairs to prepare the car for loading, and prevent leakage of grain in transit. It is impractical for the carriers to have competent workmen at all stations to do this work, and minor cleaning, patching, and coopering can readily be done by men in the employ of the elevator companies, who know exactly what is to be done, and how best to do it.

"D. If the car furnished, requires much repairing, if its door posts are shattered or broken, or if it has many holes or cracks through which grain would sift in transit, the shipper should refuse to accept it. The obligation of the carrier is to promptly furnish a suitable car. The shipper is not bound to receive and load a car upon which he must expend labor and materials to make it suitable to transport grain. The complaint of the Farmers' Co-operative Association was dismissed as not establishing a case."

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When a carrier has furnished cars reasonably necessary to transport the amount of freight which, in the usual course of events, can be expected to be offered for carriage, it has performed its duty to the public. It is not imperative for a carrier to furnish equipment for extraordinary occasions, exceptional crops, unprecedented cattle shipments, etc. Such abundance of equipment would be costly to the public.

It should be carefully noted that the common carrier's liability for loss of goods is vastly different from its liability because of delay or failure to furnish cars. For the loss of goods, the carrier is absolutely liable, except for the acts of God, and the public enemy. But a common carrier is not liable for failing to supply adequate transportation facilities, unless it has been negligent in its efforts.

In the Story Case, we have a slightly different problem. There, the railroad company had the equipment necessary to meet the demand made upon it, but by reason of its lack of knowledge of the size of the crop, had failed to distribute sufficient of its cars in the vicinity where they were required. For this failure to forecast the necessity, which it had every reason, from public and private reports as well as newspaper comments to anticipate, it is liable. A company must use reasonable care to distribute its equipment where it is needed.