Summary

William Strong Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Company Planters' National Bank of Louisville…

But can he, by a contract made with those who intrust property to him for carriage and delivery,-a contract made at the time he receives the property,-secure to himself exemption from responsibility for consequences of the negligence of a railroad company or its agents not owned or controlled by him, but which he employs in the transportation?
Source: Wikisource

William Strong Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Company Planters' National Bank of Louisville…

Had the packages been delivered to the charge of the railroad company, without any stipulation for exemption from the ordinary liability of carriers, it would have been an insurer both to the express company and to the plaintiffs. But, as they were not so delivered, the right of the plaintiffs to the extremest constant vigilance during all stages of the carriage is lost, if the defendants are not answerable for the negligence of the railroad company, notwithstanding the exception in their bills of lading. We cannot close our eyes to the well-known course of business in the country.
Source: Wikisource

William Strong Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Company Planters' National Bank of Louisville…

The foundation of the rule is, that it tends to the greater security of consignors, who always deal with such carriers at a disadvantage. It tends to induce greater care and watchfulness in those to whom an owner intrusts his goods, and by whom alone the needful care can be exercised. Any contract that withdraws a motive for such care, or that makes a failure to bestow upon the duty assumed extreme vigilance and caution more probable, takes away the security of the consignors, and makes common carrage more unreliable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature