Smith v. Wilcox, 24 N.Y. 353 (1862)
A common carrier’s liability arises from a legal obligation imposed by law, independent of contract, and is not excused by the fact that the contract was made or partially performed on a Sunday, unless the statute explicitly prohibits such activity.
Summary
Smith sued Wilcox, a common carrier, for the loss of property entrusted for transport. The defense argued that the contract was made and the property delivered on a Sunday, rendering it void under the statute prohibiting servile labor on that day. The court held that even if the contract was made on a Sunday, the common carrier’s liability exists independently of the contract, based on the policy of law. The loss did not occur on Sunday, and the statute did not prohibit the transportation of goods on that day; therefore, the defendant was liable for the loss.
Facts
Smith contracted with Wilcox, a common carrier, to transport property.
The contract was made, and the property was delivered to Wilcox on a Sunday.
During transport, the defendant’s vessel struck an obstruction (the mast of a sunken sloop) in the river, resulting in the loss of the property.
The mast was visible above water for two days prior to the accident.
Procedural History
The original court ruled in favor of Smith, holding Wilcox liable for the loss.
Wilcox appealed, arguing that the contract was void due to being made on a Sunday.
The appellate court affirmed the original judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether a common carrier is exempt from liability for the loss of property when the contract for carriage was made on a Sunday.
Holding
No, because the liability of a common carrier is imposed by law and exists independently of any contract, unless the statute explicitly prohibits the action taken on Sunday.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that a common carrier’s duty arises from the nature of their business and is imposed by law, independent of any contractual agreement. Even if the contract itself were unenforceable due to being made on a Sunday, the common carrier’s liability persists because it is based on a legal obligation, not solely on the contract. “The liability of a common carrier does not rest in his contract, but is a liability imposed by law. It exists, independently of the contract, having its foundation in the policy of the law, and it is upon this legal obligation that he is charged as carrier for the loss of property entrusted to him.” The court further noted that the statute prohibiting servile labor on Sunday did not explicitly prohibit the transportation of goods and that the loss did not occur on a Sunday. The court also stated the obstruction in the river was a preventable hazard. Therefore, the defendant could not escape liability based on either the Sunday contract argument or the argument of inevitable accident. The court referenced prior cases, such as Hollister v. Nowlen, to support the view that common carrier liability is distinct from contractual obligations. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment, emphasizing that holding a common carrier exempt due to a Sunday contract would unduly extend the purpose of Sunday observance laws.