Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Lake Region Packing Association

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for Lake Region Packing Association in its action against a railroad for delay in transporting tangerines from Florida to Philadelphia. The court held that a carrier's duty regarding transportation time is based on reasonable care and negligence, and that evidence showing delivery outside the usual and customary transportation time may support a presumption of negligence. The court also upheld the admission of qualified opinion testimony concerning customary transportation times and found no harmful error in the jury instructions.

Holdings

1. In the absence of a special contract or statute imposing a different obligation, a common carrier transporting goods must use reasonable care under the circumstances; it is not an insurer against delay or required to deliver within a particular market time.
2. A shipper makes a prima facie case and is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of negligence when competent evidence fairly and reasonably shows that the goods were not transported within the time ordinarily and customarily required for similar goods between the relevant points and that the delay proximately caused damage.
3. The trial court did not commit reversible or harmful error by refusing the railroad's requested instruction concerning reasonable time, modifying another instruction, or giving an instruction describing the shipper's prima facie case and the carrier's opportunity to show freedom from negligence.
4. The trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by allowing experienced individuals involved in the commercial transportation and sale of Florida fruit to testify about the usual time required to transport fruit by rail from Florida to Philadelphia, even though their knowledge was based partly on reports, market reports, and business records not introduced into evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a common carrier's liability for delay in transporting goods is governed by a duty of reasonable care rather than an absolute duty to deliver within a particular or usual time.
2. Whether evidence that goods were not transported within the time ordinarily and customarily required, together with resulting damage, establishes a prima facie case and creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence.
3. Whether the challenged jury instructions improperly defined reasonable time, shifted the burden of proof, or imposed absolute liability for delay.
4. Whether witnesses with substantial commercial experience and knowledge derived from secondary sources were qualified to give opinion testimony concerning the usual transportation time for fruit.

Disposition

affirmed