Again, the carrier of livestock is subject to the same liability as to delays, and owes the same duties to transport his goods within a reasonable time under the circumstances,168 and to provide reasonable opportunities for delivery to the consignee when the transportation is complete,187 the same as other carriers. So, too, it may limit this liability by contract. Such contracts may limit the amount for which the carrier shall be liable,168 or may stipulate that a claim for damages must be made within a certain reasonable time.169 But the carrier of livestock may not contract away his liability for negligence, either of himself or his servants.170

236: Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424, 19 S. W. 961; Kimball v. Rutland, 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567.

166 Abrams v. Milwaukee etc. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 41 Am. St. Rep. 55, 58 N. W. 780; Richmond etc. R. Co. v. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 389, 42 Am. St. Rep. 69, 13 South. 23; Sisson v. Cleveland etc. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489, 90 Am. Dec. 252; Gulf etc. R. Co. v. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491, 7 S. W. 785; Ohio etc. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 20 Ill. 623, 71 Am. Dec. 291; Sturgeon v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 65 Mo. 570.

167 Covington Stockyards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461; Nashville etc. R. Co. v. Trousdale, 99 Ala. 389, 42 Am. St. Rep. 69, 13 South. 23; Baker v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 10 Lea, 304.

168 Alair v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160, 39 Am. St. Rep. 588, 54 N. W. 1072; South etc. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, 8 S. W. 134; Coupland v. Housatonic etc. R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 Atl. 870. See St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Lesser, 46 Ark. 236; Duntley v. Boston etc. R. Co., 66 N. H. 263, 49 Am. St. Rep. 610, 20 Atl. 327.

169 Selby v. Wilmington etc. R. Co., 113 N. C. 588, 37 Am. St. Rep. 635, 18 S. E. 88; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Cleary, 77 Mo. 634, 46 Am. Rep. 13; Sprague v. Missouri etc. R. Co., 34 Kan. 347, 8 Pac. 465; Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Temple, 47 Kan. 7, 27 Pac. 98: Coles v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 608. This is prohibited by statute in some states: See Ohio etc. R. Co. v. Taber, 98 Ky. 503, 32 S. W. 168.

170 Welsh v. Pittsburg etc. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490; Sisson v. Cleveland etc. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489, 90 Am. Dec. Torts, Vol. II-76

§ 621. Carriers of Livestock Continued-Nature of Livestock Source of Two Classes of Damage and Duty.— The inherent nature of livestock demands that certain duties be performed in order that the transportation shall not cause excessive damage. Of course it is almost impossible to carry livestock without some injury, such as slight loss of weight, and others caused by the mere fact of their being away from their usual and natural surroundings. Such damage is the natural and ordinary effect of transportation, and the shipper must take such loss upon himself. On the other hand, damage may occur from many other causes, such as over-exposure to inclement weather, want of feeding and attention, overcrowd. ing in the cars, sudden starting and stopping of trains, and the like. These latter causes are in the control of the carrier, and are not inseparably connected with the act of transportation; hence it is the duty of the carrier to use due care to prevent damage therefrom.

It may be said, then, that the nature of livestock is the source of two classes of damage one inseparable from their transportation by carrier, the other independent thereof, but flowing from the want of care. 252; Armstrong v. United States Exp. Co., 159 Pa. St. 640, 28 Atl. 448; Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 152 Ill. 484, 39 N. E. 273; Moulton v. St. Paul etc. R. Co., 31 Minn. 85, 47 Am. Rep. 781, 16 N. W. 497; Powell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 414, 75 Am. Dec. 564; McFadden v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343, 1 Am. St. Rep. 721, 4 S. W. 689; Illinois etc. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 Ill. 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Maslin v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 14 W. Va. 180, 35 Am. Rep. 748; Sager v. Portsmouth etc. R. Co., 31 Me. 228, 50 Am. Dec. 659; Abrams v. Milwaukee etc. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 41 Am. St. Rep. 55, 58 N. W. 780; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Witty, 32 Neb. 275, 29 Am. St. Rep. 436, 49 N. W. 183; Norfolk etc. R. Co. v. Harman, 91 Va. 601, 50 Am. St. Rep. 855, 22 S. E. 490; Meuer v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 5 S. Dak. 568, 49 Am. St. Rep. 898, 59 N. W.

In regard to the first class, the carrier owes no duty whatever, but as to the second, he owes the duty of exercising ordinary care. This is true of all kinds

of perishable goods, and the only difference between carriers of livestock and of other perishable goods lies in the kind of acts whose performance an exercise of ordinary care demands. Thus this duty demands that the carrier supply cars which will withstand usage reasonably to be anticipated from livestock.171 Some courts hold the carrier to a higher standard than this, saying the duty is to provide absolutely safe cars of sufficient strength to prevent the animals from breaking through.172 The rule as first stated seems the sounder, on principle, however, as an accident through the giving away of a car to the attacks of vicious or unruly animals, is the proximate result of the inherent vice of such animals against which the carrier is only bound to exercise ordinary care.

During the transportation the carrier primarily owes the duty of attending to the needs of the animals, and must exercise due care to feed and water them,173 to provide bedding when necessary, 174 to prevent them from crowding one another to death,175

171 Selby v. Wilmington etc. R. Co., 113 N. C. 588, 37 Am. St. Rep. 635, 18 S. E. 88; Betts v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 92 Iowa, 343, 54 Am. St. Rep. 558, 60 N. W. 623.

172 Smith v. New Haven etc. R. Co., 12 Allen, 531, 90 Am. Dec. 160; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 Ill. 504; Rhodes v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 9 Bush, 688.

173 Abrams v. Milwaukee etc. R. Co., 87 Wis. 485, 41 Am. St. Rep. 55, 58 N. W. 780; Illinois etc. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 III. 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Dunn v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 68 Mo. 268; Toledo etc. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 Ill. 393.

174 Alabama etc. R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294, 18 Am. St. Rep. 119, 7 South. 762.

175 Kinnick v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 69 Iowa, 665, 29 N. W. 772; Sturgeon v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 65 Mo. 569. See Alabama etc. R. Co. v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 291, 18 Am. St. Rep. 119, 7 South. 762.

and to guard against the effects of the weather.176 Again, the carrier owes the duty of furnishing reasonably safe and proper facilities for unloading the livestock from its cars, 177 and suitable stockyards or other provisions for receiving the stock when unloaded, or before loading. 178 These duties do not arise from the contract of carriage alone, or even primarily, but only incidentally growing out of the inherent nature of livestock. Hence the carrier may stipulate to be relieved entirely therefrom, and the shipper may assume the entire duty of looking after the stock from the time it is shipped. When this has been done the carrier does not incur any obligation for injuries due to the absence of care for the stock during transportation.179 It is not essential to relieve the car

176 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 Ill. 474, 92 Am. Dec. 85; Corbett v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 86 Wis. 82, 56 N. W. 327; Feinberg v. Delaware etc. R. Co., 52 N. J. L. 451, 20 Atl. 33.

177 Chesapeake etc. R. Co. v. American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495, 23 S. E. 935; East Tennessee etc. R. Co. v. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384, 17 S. E. 344; Owen v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 87 Ky. 626, 9 S. W. 698.

178 Covington Stockyards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461; Owen v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 87 Ky. 626, 9 S. W. 698; Chesapeake etc. R. Co. v. American Exchange Bank, 92 Va. 495, 23 S. E. 935; East Tennessee etc. R. Co. v. Herrman, 92 Ga. 384, 17 S. E. 344; International etc. R. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614. 27 Am. St. Rep. 926, 18 S. W. 672; Norfolk etc. R. Co. v. Harman, 91 Va. 601, 50 Am. St. Rep. 855, 22 S. E. 490.

179 Terre Haute etc. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129, 32 Am. St. Rep. 239, 31 N. E. 781; Cragin v. New York etc. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 61, 10 Am. Rep. 559; South etc. R. Co. v. Henlein, 52 Ala. 606, 23 Am. Rep. 578; Hart v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 69 Iowa, 485, 29 N. E. 597; Fordyce v. McFlynn, 56 Ark. 424, 19 S. W. 961; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104, 8 S. W. 134;, Betts v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 21 Wis. 80, 91 Am. Dec. 460; Myers v. Wabash etc. R. Co., 90 Mo. 98, 2 S. W. 263; Great Western R. Co. v. Hawkins, 18 Mich. 427; East Tennessee etc. R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. Rep. 489; Squire v. New York etc. R. Co., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162; Welsh v. Pittsburg etc. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 490; Georgia R. Co. v. Beattie, 66 Ga. 438, 42 Am. Rep. 75.

rier that the shipper make an express contract to assume any of these duties. This may be done by implication, as where the shipper selects cars which he knows, or might know, to be defective.180 Even where the shipper agrees to feed and care for his stock during the transportation, or to load and unload it from the cars, the carrier, it is held, must provide the suitable and proper means for feeding, taking care, loading and unloading the stock.181

180 Illinois etc. R. Co. v. Hall, 58 Ill. 409; East Tennessee etc. R. Co. v. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596, 51 Am. Rep. 489. See Betts v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 21 Wis. 80, 91 Am. Dec. 460.

181 International etc. R. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614, 27 Am. St. Rep. 926, 18 S. W. 672; Johnson v. Alabama etc. R. Co., 69 Miss. 191, 30 Am. St. Rep. 534, 11 South. 104; Nashville etc. R. Co. v. Heggie, 86 Ga. 210, 22 Am. St. Rep. 453, 12 S. E. 363; Smith v. Michigan Cent. etc. R. Co., 100 Mich. 148, 43 Am. St. Rep. 440, 58 N. W. 651.