Odger's English Common Law

CARRIERS OF GOODS. 645
Every bailee for reward is, as we have seen, bound to take
all reasonable care of the goods entrusted to him ; but on a
common carrier the law has cast a further responsibility
that of an insurer—in order to give due security to property.
And it will be observed that the two chief cases, in which the
law exempts him from so large a liability, are " both so well
known to all the country when they happen, that no person
would be so rash as to attempt to prove that they had happened
when they had not, namely, the act of God and the King's
enemies." x
There is a third case, in which a common carrier is not
liable at common law—that is, where the damage is caused
by some vice inherent in the thing carried. It must be
" that sort of vice which by its internal development tends
to the destruction or the injury of the animal or thing to be
carried, and which is likely to lead to such a result." 2
" Thus, for example, the carrier is not liable for any loss or damage
from the ordinary decay or deterioration of oranges or other fruits in the
course of the voyage, from their inherent infirmity or nature, or from the
ordinary diminution or evaporation of liquids, or the ordinary leakage
from the casks in which the liquors are put, in the course of the voyage,
or from spontaneous combustion of goods, or from their tendency to
effervescence or acidity." 8
Lastly, a common carrier was never liable at common law
where the loss of, or the damage to, the goods was due to
some negligence on the part of the sender, e.g., where he sent
a dog with an insecure collar, 4 or goods improperly packed. 5
(ii.) In order to diminish their extensive liability at common
law, it became the practice for carriers to issue notices,
stating that they " would not be accountable for any property
above a certain value, unless it was insured and paid for at
certain extra rates at the time of delivery." If such a notice
was proved to have come to the knowledge of the consignor,
i Per Best, C. J., in Riley v. Hone (1828), 6 Bing. at p. 220.
2 Per Willes, J., in Blower v. G. W. By. Co. (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. at p. 662 ;
and see Kendall v. L. $ S. W. By. Co. (1872), U B. 7 Ex. 373.
3 Story on Bailments, quoted with approval by Willes, J., in Blower v. G. W.
By. Co., supra, at pp. 663, 664 ; and see Lister v. Lanes, and Yorks. By. Co.,
ri903] 1 K. B. 878.
* Richardson v. ST. E. By. Co. (1872), L. R. 7 0. P. 75.
s Stuart v. Crawley (1818), 2 Stark. N. P. 323.
—