Products Corp. v. Freight Lines, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Household Goods Carriers' Bur. v. I.C.C.

    584 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    In considering the validity of the carrier's rule relieving it from liability for articles of extraordinary value coming into its possession without its knowledge, the court stated:Garrett v. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc., No. 70-821 (D.Or., 8 February 1972); Hecker Products Corp. v. Trans-American Freight Lines, Inc., 296 Mich. 381, 296 N.W. 297 (1941). Cf. Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Smith, 28 Colo. App. 85, 470 P.2d 926 (1970).

  2. Whalen v. Bennett

    67 Mich. App. 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 3 times
    Recognizing that summary disposition by "general default" for failure to appear at summary disposition hearing was improper when summary disposition was not warranted on the merits

    Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and the affidavit filed in support thereof disclosed that plaintiffs' claim was for unliquidated damages. Under these facts, plaintiffs were not entitled to a summary judgment. Hecker Products Corp v Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc, 296 Mich. 381; 296 N.W. 297 (1941). Further, in cases involving state of mind such as the scienter requirement in fraud, summary judgment will hardly ever be appropriate because it will be difficult to foreclose a genuine dispute over this factual question.

  3. W-H Milling Co. v. Railway Co.

    43 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    "We have repeatedly held that the classification of tariffs of a carrier on file with the interstate commerce commission becomes part and parcel along with the bill of lading in making up the contract of carriage." Hecker Products Corp. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 296 Mich. 381. The trial court correctly held that the failure of plaintiff to comply with the contractual provision requiring that plaintiff's claim must be filed with the carrier within 9 months from delivery of the shipment to the carrier bars recovery.

  4. Allied Van Lines v. Smith

    470 P.2d 926 (Colo. App. 1970)   Cited 8 times

    Missouri P. R. Co. v. Elmore Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964). The general proposition that a common carrier is not bound to accept and transport any and every article tendered regardless of value and consequent risk does not appear to have been modified by the Carmack Amendment, and it is our opinion that such statute does not impose carrier liability for an article which the carrier has no public duty to transport and which it did not knowingly accept for transportation. Herring v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co., supra; and Hecker Products Corporation v. Trans-American Freight Lines, Inc., 296 Mich. 381, 296 N.W. 297 (1941). In the instant situation Allied was not, in our opinion, required to accept the carton of extraordinary value for shipment and thereby become liable for its safe delivery.

  5. Kellett v. Alaga Coach Lines

    37 So. 2d 137 (Ala. Crim. App. 1948)   Cited 8 times

    It is not amiss to here observe that the courts have on numerous occasions held that limitations in tariffs as to weight, value, etc. beyond which the property would not be transported are authorized under the law. Some of these cases are: Birmingham Terminal Co. v. Wilson, supra; Hecker Products Corp. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, 296 Mich. 381, 296 N.W. 297; Jacobson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C. Mun.App., 54 A.2d 575; Royalty v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 75 Ohio App. 322, 62 N.E.2d 200; Argo v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 72 Ga. App. 309, 33 S.E.2d 730; Campbell v. Tri-State Transit Co., 196 Miss. 367, 17 So.2d 327; Gulf, C. Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. McCandless, supra. The striking similarity between the tariffs involved in some of the above cases leads to the surmise that the motor carriers have adopted a general standard or uniform schedule for their published tariffs.

  6. Railway Express Agency v. Hueber

    191 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945)   Cited 2 times

    In our opinion, it is an attempt on the part of a carrier to limit its liability in a manner which is positively prohibited by the Carmack Amendment. The only case holding any such provision valid, that we know of, is the case of Hecker Products Corp. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 296 Mich. 381, 296 N.W. 297, 300, and in that case the carrier was a motor carrier, not equipped to carry articles of unusual and extraordinary value, and the court held that the provision was not one limiting its liability, but one that prohibited the shipment of such articles by motor freight lines. The court said: "We hold that reports valued at $5,000 were articles of extraordinary value.