Odger's English Common Law

650 TORTS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS.
contract with the consignor. 1
Nothing in the Act protects
any carrier from liability for any loss to goods arising from
the felonious acts of any servant in his employ, nor protects
any such servant from liability for any loss or injury occasioned
by his personal neglect or misconduct. 2
The Act compels the consignor of goods of a particular
kind to give the carrier information of their nature and value. 3
If he omits to do so, he will not be able to sue the carrier for
loss of the goods, even though such loss be occasioned by
gross negligence on the part of the carrier. 4
ite will, how-
ever, be able to recover their value, if the loss arose through
the felonious act of any servant of the carrier. 5 The owner of
the goods can still recover damages if the carrier wrongfully
refuses to receive them or unduly delays their delivery,
whether the goods be of the description mentioned in the Act
or not. 6
The Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1 854, 7 only applies to
railway and canal companies. It expressly provides that
nothing therein contained shall alter or affect the rights,
privileges or liabilities of any such company under the
Carriers Act with respect to articles of the descriptions
mentioned in that Act. It includes in its scope property not
brought within the provisions of the Carriers Act, such as
cattle and other animals. It enacts that every company to
which it applies s shall be liable for negligence or default in
the carriage of horses, cattle or other animals, 9 or goods,
notwithstanding any notice, condition or declaration being
made and given by such company contrary thereto or in
1 D'Arc v. L. 4' JV. W. My. Co. (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 325.
2 S. 8 ; and see Stephens v. L. # S. W. By. Co. (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 121 ; Marriotts.
Yeoward Bros., [1909] 2 K. B. 987.
3 Bart v. Baxendale (1851), 6 Exch. 769.
* The precise meaning of the term " gross negligence " is explained in Austin v.
Manchester, Sheffield, #c, By. Co. (1850), 10 C. B. 474, 475.
5 Vaughton v. L. $ N. W. By. Co. (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 93 ; M'Queen v. G. XV.
By. Co. (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 569.
6 Beam v. L. # S. W. By. Co. (1855), 10 Exch. 793 ; Pianciani v. L. $ S. W.
By. Co. (1856), 18 C. B. 226.
7 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31.
8 See s. 1, ante, p. 647. Where section 7 does not apply, the liability of the
company may have to be determined by reference to the ordinary law of bailment
see Richardson v. TV. E. Ry. Co. (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 75, 81.
9 A dog is within these words : Harrison v. L. B. $ S„ C. By. Co. (1860), 2 B. &
S. 122, 162. See Ashenden v. L. B. $ S. C. By. Co. (1880), 5 Ex. D. 190 ; Dickson
v. G. W. By. Co. (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 176.
: