Odger's English Common Law

648 TORTS ARISING O0T OP CONTRACTS.
its liability in this way, the terms used must be precise and
unambiguous.
Some railway companies insist that they " will not be responsible for
loss "—which they are certainly entitled to do. But if no further words
are added, it will be held that the company will only be immune from the
responsibility of loss which remains unexplained—in other words, if the
plaintiff can prove negligence in the company or its servants, he may
recover in spite of the stipulation. 1
" The company will not pay loss for damage unless a claim for such loss
is made within " a certain time. This has been held a reasonable condition.
So has " the company will not be responsible for loss of market." But if
the servants of the company knew that the goods must be in the market by
a certain day and neglected to send them by that day, the company is
liable.
A condition contained in the contract, exempting the company from
liability for loss of or injury to cattle caused by restiveness, would not
relieve them from liability for damage resulting from the negligence of
their servant. 2
The doctrine as to contributory negligence may sometimes apply to
relieve a carrier from liability. 3 But a condition which would exempt the
company from responsibility for damage done to the goods however caused
—including therefore gross negligence, and even fraud or dishonesty on
the part of the servants of the company—would be neither just nor
reasonable. 4
(iii.) The liability of a common carrier at common law was
modified by the Carriers Act, 1830. 5
Section 1 of this Act
provides that a carrier shall not be liable for the loss of or
any injury to any " parcel or package " 6 containing certain
articles—when exceeding £10 in value—unless the value
and nature of the article shall have been declared at the time
of its delivery by the consignor, and an increased charge for
carriage or a promise to pay the same accepted by the
i See P. $ 0. Steam Navigation, Co. v. Shand (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. 0. (N. S.)
272, where the passenger failed to prove negligence, and lost the action.
a See Wise v. G. W. By. Co. (1866), 1 H. & N. 63 ; Richardson v. N. E. By. Co.
(1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 75.
* Gill v. Manchester, Sheffield, $e„ By. Co. (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 186.
* Peek v. North Staffordshire By. Co. (1862), 10 H. L. Cas. 473 • Lewis
G. W. Ry. Co. (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 195 ; Forder v. G. W. Ry. Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 532
Buckton » Co. v. L. $ N. W. Ry. Co. (1916), 87 L. J. K. B. 23*. See further, as to
what conditions are reasonable, Doolan v. Midland Ry. Co. (1877), 2 App. Cas. 792 ;
Manc/iester, Sheffield, S;o., Ry. Oo. v. Brown (1883), 8 App. Cas. 703, 710, 716 ; Cutler
v. L. % N. W. Ry. Co. (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 64.
* 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. o. 68.
« As to what is a " parcel or package " within section 1, see Whaite v. Lanes. *
Torts. By. Co. (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 67.
;