REPORTS

OF

MERCANTILE CASES.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

GUILDHALL, March 4. - Before Lord Tenterden Ch. J.

BRADLEY V. WATERHOUSE and Others.

THIS was an action against the defendants, as carriers, for the loss of a parcel containing six pounds of tea and 200 sovereigns, sent by their coach from London to Ashbourne. It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff, who was a banker at Ashbourne, was in the habit of receiving, by the defendant's coach, parcels containing sovereigns to an amount varying from 10,000l. to 20,000l. in the course of a year. That the defendants had in their office a board containing the usual notice for limiting their responsibility; that the plaintiff's agent in London was aware of this, but, nevertheless, always booked these parcels for the plaintiff without giving any intimation of their value, and had done so in the present instance. The parcel in question was an ordinary six pound tea-chest, in the inside of which were placed the 200 sovereigns, and the whole was covered with a common wrapper. The weight, of course, was considerable. Whilst the coach was stopping on the

B

1828.

Carriers who their responsibility by notice, are not liable for a loss by the robbery of their own servants, where

have limited

there has been

great carelessness on the

part of the owner, and ligence on their part.

no gross neg

1828. BRADLEY

บ.

road for the purpose of changing horses, the parcel was stolen, and, as it appeared by a subsequent conviction for the felony, by a porter employed by the defendants WATERHOUSE. in the unloading of the coach and the delivery of parcels. It further appeared, that Briggs, one of the defendants, when applied to by the plaintiff, said, that any loss should be made good.

The Solicitor-General, for the plaintiff, contended, that carriers were in the nature of insurers; that though the law permitted them to limit their responsibility by a public notice, yet they were not thereby released from the consequences of their own negligence. That here the defendants had been guilty of negligence, in leaving the coach in the street without putting trusty persons to protect the property which they had undertaken to convey, and that at all events they were answerable for the acts of their servants, and must make good any peculation by them.

Sir James Scarlett, for the defendants, insisted that they were protected by the notice. That the plaintiff, being aware of this regulation, and not choosing to give a remuneration proportionate to the risk, had elected to be his own insurer, and could not, therefore, advance any claim against the defendants.

Lord TENTERDEN. The notice is not an absolute bar to the action. Gross negligence or a breach of duty on the part of the defendants would, in general, make them liable notwithstanding the notice. But in this case has there not been neglect on the part of the plaintiff? Has he not brought this loss upon himself by the imprudent manner of sending the parcel? Most people by handling it would discover that there was something in it besides tea, and he ought to have used