Odger's English Common Law

CARRIERS OF GOODS. 643'
CARRIERS OF GOODS.
A person, who parries goods for another, may be a
gratuitous bailee or a bailee for hire ;
but in most cases he is
what the law terms a " common carrier."
A common carrier is one who publicly offers to carry goods
for any one for reward on a certain route. 1 He is bound to
carry goods for any one who offers them for carriage anywhere
on that route, provided that he has room in his conveyance, 2
that the goods offered are the sort of goods which he usually
carries, and that the person offering them can pay a reason-
able price. This is because he holds himself out to carry
such goods ; he exercises a public employment. If lie
wrongfully refuses to receive and carry goods for any one,
he is liable to an action on the case for damages. " The old
idea that to be a common earrier by land a man must carry
between fixed termini, or at any rate within defined districts,,
has been abandoned." 8
At common law, if goods entrusted to a common carrier
were lost or destroyed in transit, the owner could recover
their full value without proving any negligence on the part
of the carrier or his servants. A common carrier, in fact,
was treated as an insurer of the goods. This rule was first
established from the fear lest such carriers should be in
collusion with highwaymen. 4 " The duty of common carriers
by the common law is perfectly well understood ; it is a
warranty safely and securely to carry ; whether they be guilty
of negligence or not is immaterial ; the warranty is broken by
the non-conveyance or non-delivery of the goods entrusted to-
them." 5 As some slight compensation for this wide liability r
1 There is no such thing as a common carrier of passengers. A hansom cabman.
is not a common carrier even of the luggage which he carries with his fare : Ross
v. Bill (1846), 2 C. B. 877.
2 Jackson v. Rogers (1683), 2 Show. 327.
a Per Baiihache, J., in Belfast Mopework Co. v. Bushell, [1918J 1 K. B. at p. 214.
* See the judgment of Lord Holt, C. J., in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 1 Smith's-
L. C. 12th ed., at p. 195. The rule is not derived from the Roman law, ae Cock
burnj'c. J-> clearly demonstrates in his judgment in Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1
C. P.' D. at p. 428.
s Per Wilde, C. J., in Richards v. L. B. $ S. C. Ry. Co. (1849), 7 C. B. at.
p 858 As to the carrier's duty in regard to the goods if the consignees fail totake
delivery of them, see G. N. Ry. Co. v. Swaffield (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 132 ;
Mitchell v. Lanos. and Forks. Ry. Co. (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 266.
41--2
-