E. M. G. LEATHER ARTS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A truck line carrier obtained a directed verdict in a negligence action involving damage to shipped goods. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie case to submit to the jury under the doctrine that damage to goods delivered in good condition and received in damaged condition raises a presumption of carrier negligence.
The court held that the plaintiff presented a jury question on both elements—receipt of goods in good condition and delivery in damaged condition—and that a directed verdict was error. The case should have gone to the jury because the evidence was sufficient to support the plaintiff's negligence claim under the presumption arising from delivery of undamaged goods and receipt of damaged goods.
“the elements necessary to prove a prima facie case in an action such as the one we have before us have been set out in American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Fegenbush, 107 Fla. 145, 144 So. 320: (1) Receipt by carrier in good condition; (2) Delivery to the consignee in bad condition. Under such circumstances the presumption arises that the damage was caused by the negligence of the carrier and while that presumption is rebuttable, it must be accomplished by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving negligence by a carrier based on the condition of goods at receipt and delivery.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.M.G. Leather Arts, Inc. shipped goods via Central Truck Lines. The goods were delivered to a warehouseman in good condition, properly crated, and de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rebuttable Presumption cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant E. M. G. Leather Arts, Inc., was the plaintiff in the trial court. The court directed a verdict for the defendant-appellee Central Truck Lines, Inc. at the close of plaintiff’s case. The action was for damages alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in the handling of goods owned by the plaintiff-appellant which were shipped on defendant’s truck line.
The elements necessary to prove a prima facie case in an action such as the one we have before us have been set out in American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Fegenbush, 107 Fla. 145, 144 So. 320: (1) Receipt by carrier in good condition; (2) Delivery to the consignee in bad condition. Under such circumstances the presumption arises that the damage was caused by the negligence of the carrier and while that presumption is rebuttable, it must be accomplished by a preponderance of the evidence. See cases cited in American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Fegenbush, supra.
There was evidence before the jury in the instant case from which the jury could have found the goods were delivered by the plaintiff to a warehouseman in good condi-. tion, that the warehouseman properly crated the goods for shipment and that the goods were then delivered in the same' condition to the carrier.
*204There was also evidence from which the jury could have found that the goods were delivered to the consignee in a damaged condition. This evidence consisted of the testimony of defendant’s investigating agent that shortly after the arrival of the goods he was called to the consignee’s place of business in order to view the damaged shipment.
We do not mean to imply that upon either of these points the testimony was so conclusive as to bar a contrary finding by the jury but, rather, we hold that La jury question was presented in each instance. The directed verdict was error under the rule that a case should not be withdrawn from the jury’s consideration unless as a matter of law no proper view of the evidence could possibly sustain the position of the party against whom the verdict is directed, Bourgeois v. Dade County, Fla. 1957, 99 So.2d 575, 72 A.L.R.2d 391.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Housel v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 233 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…s while in shipment on the defendant’s truck line are: (1) Receipt by the carrier in good condition ; and (2) delivery to the consignee (Plaintiff in this case) in bad condition (See E.M.G. Leather Arts, Inc. v. Central Truck Lines, Inc. [Fla.App.], 165 So. 2d 203 and American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Fegenbush [107 Fla. 145], 144 So. 320). If the plaintiff establishes both of these elements then the presumption arises that the damage was caused by the negligence of the carrier, which can be rebutted only by evidence…1 / 2
-
Terminal Transp. Co., Inc. v. Lamtron Indus., Inc., 233 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…o support the finding upon the counterclaim because of appellee’s failure to establish that the furniture was delivered to the appellant transport company in good condition. See E. M. G. Leather Arts, Inc. v. Central Truck Lines, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 203. The man who received the furniture in Alabama had been engaged in the business of receiving and shipping furniture since 1938. He had done much more receiving than shipping. As a witness for the appellee he testified as to the customary way furnitu…
-
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Groff Indus., Inc., 263 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the shipment was delivered to the carrier in good condition and that the shipment was delivered by the carrier at destination in a damaged condition. E. M. G. Leather Arts, Inc. v. Central Truck Lines, Inc., 165 So. 2d 203 (Fla.App.1964). The Court in Reider v. Thompson, 197 F. 2d 158 (5th Cir. 1952), a case relied on by both Appellant and Appellee, states: “ . . . however, when packages are received by the carrier in acknowledged good external condition but are deli…
Authorities Cited
- Bourgeois v. Dade Cnty., 99 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1956)
- Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Fegenbush, 107 Fla. 145 (Fla. 1932)