Odger's English Common Law

644 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
the law allowed the common carrier a lien on the goods which
he carried, until he was paid his reasonable charges for carry-
ing them. 1
«
We must now deal with the various limitations, which have
been placed upon his liability as an insurer. These limitations
may be classed under three heads :
(i.) Limitations which always existed at common law with-
out express stipulations.
(ii.) Limitations introduced by special agreement.
—
(iii.) Limitations created by statute,
(i.) A carrier was at common law never liable for any loss
or damage caused to goods by an "act of God." By this
phrase is meant an event beyond human intervention, which
cannot by reasonable foresight be anticipated or prevented,
and which is due exclusively to natural, causes, such as a
storm of unusual violence. 2
Still " the carrier is bound to do
his utmost to protect goods committed to his charge from loss
or damage, and if he fails therein he becomes liable from
the nature of his contract. ... If by his default in omitting
to take the necessary care loss or damage ensues, he remains
responsible, though the so-called act of God may have been
Moreover there are
the immediate cause of the mischief." 3
many unforeseen and unavoidable accidents, which are not
the result of an "act of God." And for damage caused by
any such inevitable accident a common carrier is liable,
though an ordinary bailee is not.
Again, the common carrier was always free from liability
for loss or damage to the goods entrusted to him, which was
caused by an act of the King's enemies. By " the King's
enemies " is meant public enemies, with whom the nation is
at war, and not merely thieves, although these are no doubt
King's enemies in a wider sense of the term. There are
many kinds of vis major other than compulsion exercised by
the King's enemies, and for damage caused by any of these a
common carrier is liable, though an ordinary bailee is not.
1 See ante, pp. 28, 29 ; and Electric Supply Stores v. Gaywood (1909), 100 L. T. 855.
2 Sriddon v. G. JST. By. Co. (1858), 28 L. J. Ex. 51.
» Per Cockburn, C. J., in Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C. P. D. at p. 436.