AKERS MOTOR LINES, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PEASLEE METAL PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, A 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.
This case involves a dispute over damage to a machine during shipment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the finding that the shipper's improper loading, which the carrier knew or should have known about, caused the damage.
No, the trial court did not err. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's factual findings and the application of law.
“The trial judge resolved the conflicting testimony in finding that Peaslee's agent had loaded the equipment into Akers' trailer, but that it was loaded in a way likely to result in damage and that the improper loading was or should have been known to Akers prior to the placement of its seal on the trailer and haulage southward.”
This quote establishes the trial court's key factual findings regarding the improper loading and the carrier's knowledge.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeaslee sued Akers for damage to a machine shipped from Connecticut to Florida. The trial judge found that Peaslee's agent loaded the equipment into A…
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 Appellate Deference To Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Peaslee sued Akers for damage caused to an expensive machine shipped from Connecticut to Florida. The trial judge resolved the conflicting testimony in finding that Peaslee’s agent had loaded the equipment into Akers’ trailer, but that it was loaded in a way likely to result in damage and that the improper loading was or should have been known to Akers prior to the placement of its seal on the trailer and haulage southward. A proper restraint in the appellate judiciary compels us to accept the factual findings, adequately supported by the record, as the trial judge *499made them, and the law he applied is ■unexceptionable. See United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc., 209 F.2d 442, 44 A.L.R.2d 984 (4th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 347 U.S. 952, 74 S.Ct. 677, 98 L.Ed 1098 (1954), 44 A.L.R.2d 984, and the annotation at 44 A.L.R.2d 993.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc., 209 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1953)
- Savage Truck Line, Inc. v. United States, 347 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1954)
- Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Deal, 347 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1954)