Thayer v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

California Supreme Court
360 P.2d 56, 55 Cal. 2d 430, 11 Cal. Rptr. 560 (1961)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A formal document is not required to satisfy a bill of lading's provision requiring a written claim for damages; informal writings are sufficient if they provide the carrier with authoritative notice of the damage and a clear inference that the shipper intends to claim reimbursement.

Facts:

Plaintiff Thayer purchased a precision grinding machine in Illinois for shipment to California via the defendant carrier.
Upon arrival, movers discovered the machine was severely damaged, with the supporting blocks broken and the machine jerked loose from the car floor.
The defendant's agent, Hileman, visually inspected the damage and completed a standard company inspection form which became part of the defendant's files.
Thayer refused to pay the freight charges of approximately $550, insisting he was owed money for the extensive damage.
On April 20, 1955, to induce Thayer to pay the freight bill, agent Hileman wrote 'Damage on this shipment, 4/20/55' on the freight bill at Thayer's office.
Thayer paid the freight charges only after this notation was made.
Thayer had the machine repaired at a cost of approximately $3,500.
Thayer's attorney submitted a formal detailed letter of claim to the carrier more than nine months after the delivery, which the carrier rejected as untimely.

Procedural Posture:

Thayer sued the Pacific Electric Railway Company in state trial court for damages to freight.
The jury was excused by consent of both parties.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Thayer, finding the writings sufficient to meet the bill of lading requirements.
The Pacific Electric Railway Company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do a carrier's internal inspection report and a handwritten notation of damage on a freight bill, taken together, satisfy the bill of lading's requirement that a claim for damages be filed in writing within nine months?

Opinions:

Majority - White, J.

Yes, the informal writings constituted a valid written claim under federal law standards. The court reasoned that the requirement for a written claim is addressed to a 'practical exigency' rather than strict formality. The primary purpose of the rule is to provide the carrier with notice of the damage and the shipper's intent to seek reimbursement, allowing the carrier to investigate and protect itself against fraud. In this case, the carrier had actual notice through its own inspection report. Furthermore, the notation 'Damage on this shipment' on the freight bill, written by the agent at the plaintiff's insistence, served as written notice of the plaintiff's intention to file a claim. The court rejected the argument that a claim must be physically written by the claimant, holding that the carrier's employee acted as the plaintiff's agent for the purpose of the notation.

Analysis:

This decision significantly relaxes the procedural strictness required for shippers to recover damages from common carriers in interstate commerce. By adopting a substance-over-form approach, the court aligns with federal precedents that view notice requirements practically rather than technically. The ruling prevents carriers from using the nine-month limitation period as a technical shield when they already possess actual, written knowledge of the damage and the shipper's intent to assert a claim. It also establishes that a carrier's employee can constructively act as a shipper's agent for the purpose of creating the required written notice, provided the writing is done at the shipper's insistence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Thayer v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. (1961)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"