55 Cal.2d 430 (1961) 360 P.2d 56 11 Cal. Rptr. 560 ERNEST H. THAYER, Respondent, v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. Docket No. L.A. 26080. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. March 2, 1961. *431 E.D. Yeomans, Walt A. Steiger and John H. Gordon for Appellant. Dryden, Harrington, Horgan & Swartz and Vernon G. Foster for Respondent. WHITE, J. This is an appeal by the Pacific Electric Railway Company from a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,750 in an action for damages to freight of which defendant *432 was the terminal carrier. The principal question raised is whether the plaintiff complied with the requirement of the bill of lading that in order to recover for damages to freight, a claim in writing must be filed with the carrier within nine months after delivery of the property. The plaintiff is a Long Beach manufacturer of precision-made aircraft parts. In 1955, he purchased a precision grinding machine that was then located in Illinois, and arranged to have the machine shipped to Artesia, California. The machine was in good condition when delivered to the originating carrier. On March 29, 1955, defendant's agent notified the plaintiff that the machine had arrived. Plaintiff contacted a firm of machinery movers and instructed them to remove it from the railroad car. When they went to pick up the machine on March 30, 1955, the movers observed that the machine was damaged. Before moving it from the railroad car, they contacted the plaintiff who made a personal inspection that same day. The machine was severely damaged, even though it was bolted to heavy, wooden skids which in turn were bolted to the bottom of the box car. The boards on the bottom of the car had been jerked loose, breaking the blocks which were supporting the machine. The plaintiff had photographs taken of the damaged interior of the car and the damaged machine. After the plaintiff had returned to his office, he telephoned defendant's station agent, Carl Hileman, and complained about the condition of the machine. In response to the complaint, the agent visually inspected the machine and the box car and filled out a standard company form used for the inspection of damages. The plaintiff did not accompany the agent when the inspection was made or when the inspection form was filled out. Hileman's inspection report became a part of defendant's permanent files. After completing the inspection, Hileman returned to plaintiff's office and there ensued a discussion over the condition of the machine. Before departing, the agent gave the plaintiff standard claim forms, explaining that they could be filled out and returned by plaintiff when the extent of the damage was ascertained. After the photographer had performed his function and Hileman had completed his inspection, plaintiff had the movers take the machine from the box car. Representatives of the defendant negotiated with plaintiff over the amount due for freight charges, and after plaintiff rejected two bills because of the application of improper …
Original document ES