Kennedy Kratzer v. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Fraser-Smith Co. v. Chicago, Railroad Co.

    435 F.2d 1396 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 19 times
    Finding failure of proof on issue of damage to a shipment of corn where the only witness who testified as to its condition on arrival did so based on hearsay and did not himself see the corn or inspect it, and that evidence that goods were "unmarketable" did not establish that the goods were "totally worthless"

    Additionally, it is generally considered that a consignee (in this instance the consignee and shipper are the same entity) is in a much better position to dispose of the damaged merchandise than the carrier who is not in the business of buying and selling the product involved. See Kennedy Kratzer, Inc. v. Chicago, B. Q.R.R., 245 N.E.2d 910 (Ill.App. 1969). This is consonant with the fact that unless the goods are worth only "salvage value" at their point of delivery (cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Tifton Produce Co., 179 Ga. 624, 176 S.E. 624, 96 A.L.R. 772 (1934)), the carrier could be at the mercy of low bidding on the product by a consignee or third parties. Under such circumstances there exists no justification to make a carrier a forced buyer by a forced contract.

  2. Pilgrim Distribut. Corp. v. Terminal Transp. Co.

    383 F. Supp. 204 (S.D. Ohio 1974)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that, in addition to establishing that it was free from negligence, the defendant showed fault by the shipper

    Additionally, it is generally considered that a consignee (in this instance the consignee and shipper are the same entity) is in a much better position to dispose of the damaged merchandise than the carrier who is not in the business of buying and selling the product involved. See Kennedy Kratzer, Inc. v. Chicago, B Q R.R., 106 Ill. App.2d 278, 245 N.E.2d 910 (Ill.App. 1969). This is consonant with the fact that unless the goods are worth only `salvage value' at their point of delivery (cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Tifton Produce Co., 179 Ga. 624, 176 S.E. 624, 96 A.L.R. 772 (1934), the carrier could be at the mercy of low bidding on the product by a consignee or third parties. Under such circumstances, there exists no justification to make a carrier a forced buyer by a forced contract.