Glickfeld v. Howard Van Lines, Inc.

Glickfeld v. Howard Van Lines, Inc.

Opinion

 [*724]  Under a written agreement the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee, Irving Glickfeld, shipped household goods and personal belongings from New York to Los Angeles via Howard Van Lines, Inc., an interstate carrier operating under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, Title 49 U.S.C.A., including Sec. 20(11) ¹ [**12]  by virtue of Sec. 319 ² thereof. Thereafter he brought suit against Howard and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to recover full compensation for damage to his property allegedly sustained while in Howard's custody, and also for the full value of items of the shipment which were allegedly converted by Howard.

The trial court awarded Glickfeld judgment for damage in accordance with the written agreement which limited the amount of recoverable damages to items delivered and as well for the loss of items not delivered. As to the latter, the court found that (although they were never delivered) they had not been converted by Howard. Glickfeld appealed, contending  [**2]  that he was legally entitled to a judgment for the full value of the damages to his property and for the full value of the property lost. Howard and the insurance company appealed only from that part of the judgment relating to the  [*725]  damaged goods delivered, claiming a lack of evidence to support it.

The written shipping agreement between Glickfeld and Howard provided:

'Shipper hereby * * * especially agrees to accept for himself and assigns the released valuation of 30 cents per lb. per article. If more than 30 cents per lb. per article, strike out 30 cents and insert figure.' (See footnotes 1 and 3 herein.)

Glickfeld's point as to full compensation, and for the 30 cents limitation thereon, for both the damaged goods and for the lost goods is that while it is true Interstate Commerce Commission orders may permit a common carrier to establish rates dependent upon released values of thirty cents per pound per article, in the instance of this case such permission is conditioned upon the requirement that the carrier use the Uniform Household Goods Bill of Lading, which requirement was not met. He argues as to the lost portion of the shipment that it would be against public  [**3]  policy to permit the limited recovery as to undelivered goods.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.