Hyperlawhypertext legal database Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co. 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 528

← Cases

Glovinsky v. Cunard Steamship Co.

53 N.Y. St. Rep. 528 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1893-06-19 English

Delivered by Fitzsimons, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 528
Chaya Glovinsky, Resp’t, v. The Cunard Steamship Co., Limited, App’lt.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed June 19, 1893.)

Headnote

1. Cabbiebs—Reasonable amount of baggage fob tbaveleb.
Wearing apparel and bedding to the amount of $285 is not an unreasonable amount of baggage for a woman and two children who are removing to this country, unless she is a pauper.
2. Same—Limitation of liability.
In such a case a provision in the transportation ticket limiting the carrier’s liability for loss of baggage to fifty dollars is invalid.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict.
Owen, Gray & Sturges, for app’lt; Mashbir & Cukor, for resp’t.

The plaintiff engaged with defendant through its agent at Hamburg to take passage from there to this place. She had certain baggage which was lost on the way; hence this action. The jury returned a verdict for $283.

The baggage of defendant consisted of wearing apparel for herself and two children and some bed feathers and covering.

She had a right to bring with her suitable wearing apparel for herself and children of the kind, quality and quantity befitting her station in life, having also in view the object of her journey.

She, under the circumstances related herein, had a right to include as part of her baggage the bed-clothing and feathers which she had with her, as well as necessary wearing apparel, providing it was reasonable in value and quantity.

Surely" no fair man would be justified in saying. that wearing

p. 529
apparel and bedding for a woman and two children of the value of $285, unless she was a pauper, is unreasonable for her to carry as baggage.

Therefore, the provision in defendant’s transportation ticket limiting its liability for loss of baggage to fifty dollars is invalid providing it conflicts with the rule just stated.

The question whether it was a reasonable provision in this case or not was submitted to the jury.

Their finding that it was unreasonable is certainly right in this instance.

It was right for the trial justice to exclude the said transportation ticket, because what it contained was immaterial, and for the further reason that defendant failed to show due diligence to discover the original one. We find no error.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Van Wtck, J„, concurs.