54
CHAPTER 15
SPECIAL BAILMENTS
Answers to Learning Objectives
1. A carrier is engaged in the business of transporting either goods or persons, or both. The two
categories of carriers are private carriers and common carriers.
Lesson Outline
1. A carrier is one engaged in the business of transporting either goods or persons, or both, for a fee.
2. Carriers are usually classified as private carriers and common carriers.
a. A private carrier is one that, for a fee, transports goods or persons only under special instances
3. A common carrier is not liable for losses arising from:
a. Acts of God
4. A common carrier may attempt to limit or escape the extraordinary liability imposed upon it by law.
In general, the limitations upon the carrier’s liability permitted by the Federal Bills of Lading Act
5. The carrier’s high degree of liability lasts only during transportation. If there is a delay at the
beginning or end of the shipment, the carrier is merely liable as a mutual-benefit bailee during the
delay.
6. The initial carrier and the final carrier are charged with liability for loss or damage even though it
occurs on a connecting line.
7. A bill of lading is a document of title, and it sets forth the contract between the shipper (consignor)
and the carrier. There are two types of bills of lading:
Chapter 15 Special Bailments
55
9. Baggage consists of those articles necessary for personal convenience while traveling.
10. A reasonable amount of baggage may be carried as a part of the passenger’s fare. The liability of a
common carrier for baggage is the same as that of a common carrier of goods.
11. A hotelkeeper is one who supplies lodging to transients.
Comments on Cases
(p. 162) The court pointed out that Cooks hauling business was a result of private arrangements with its
regular customers. This was evident from the fact that Cook had no hauling income the month
it did not have an auction. Cook Tractor Co., Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 18 S.W.3d 870 (Mo.)
(p. 167) Even though Union Pacific did not itself issue a bill of lading, the terms of the shipment were
covered in the through bill of lading issued by Kawasaki. The court found that parties could use
a terms in a bill of lading to determine jurisdiction over any disputes. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, 130 S.Ct. 2433
(p. 168) The court stated that once a passenger on a common carrier shows injury, the carrier has the
responsibility of showing it was not negligent. This the city could not and did not do so it was
liable. Lewis v. City Of Shreveport, 985 So.2d 1249 (La. Ct. App.)
56
(p. 171) The court pointed out that the prior crimes did not need to be identical; they only had to be
sufficiently similar. In this case assaults in and near the bar and involving intoxication were
sufficiently similar. Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 206 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. Ct. App.)
Answers to Questions
(Page 172)
1. Some bailments are called extraordinary bailments because they are mutual-benefit bailments in
which the bailee, under the common law, is held to a higher than normal standard of care for the
bailed property.
5. The law requires every carrier to have its printed bill of lading form approved by a government
agency before adoption because the shipper does not have any direct voice in the preparation of the
bill of lading and the bill of lading limits the carrier’s liability.
6. A carrier’s high degree of liability lasts only during transportation. After that time the carrier is
liable only as a mutual-benefit bailee.
7. Under a straight bill of lading, the consignee alone is designated as the one to whom the goods are
to be delivered. Under an order bill of lading, the goods are shipped to a designated consignee or
order, or to the bearer. The order bill of lading must be presented before the carrier can safely
deliver the goods. This is not true of a straight bill of lading.
Answers to Case Problems
(Page 173)
1. Yes. The court concluded it was impossible to leave a motor vehicle inside a motor vehicle. As a
result, the statute did not apply to theft of a motor vehicle. Common law applied. Arguello v. Sunset
Station, Inc., 252 P.3d 206 (Nev.)
Chapter 15 Special Bailments
57
2. The court should find for the county on this issue. A common carrier of passengers owes the
highest degree of care to its passengers not to third parties. Parrilla v. King County, 157 P.3d 879
(Wash. Ct. App.)
Hospitality Management Associates, 575 S.E.2d 562 (S.C. Ct. App.)
5. In order for a carrier to be liable, the shipper must first provide evidence that the goods were
delivered in good condition. In this case, the only evidence was damage at the end of transport.
Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to hold SLT, or any other carrier, liable for damage. Cal
Insurance Company, Limited v. M/V Williamsburg Bridge in rem, Uti (Japan) K. K., 2010 WL
2802257 (D. N.J.)
6. No. The hotel provided an alternate handicap-accessible means of exiting and Roth knew about it.
He purposefully chose not to use it and injured himself attempting to use the main entrance
unassisted. It was Mr. Roth’s impatience, not a lack of signage or information, that caused him to
58
Answers to Summary Cases for Part Three
(Page 176)
1. No. Munar was let off at a safe location, where she exited the bus without incident or complaint.
The court said that the city’s duty to Munar as a passenger ended at that time. After disembarking
she walked one hundred fifty feet to the intersection, where she waited thirty seconds before
entering the road.
6. No. Devos properly delivered the pharmaceuticals to Stericycle. Any harm Rebel suffered was
because the producer declined to credit the return, not because the return was not made.
7. No. A shipper is only liable for improper packing when the improper packing is latent, or not
observable by reasonable inspection. Decker made only a cursory review of the load because it
looked the same as the prior one. If he had stepped up into the trailer he would have noticed the