Hyman Secoulsky vs. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1916-04-05

223 Mass. 465

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court overruled the plaintiff's exceptions and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the carrier's contractual liability limitation to $50 was binding on the plaintiff despite his illiteracy in English, and that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the measure of damages.

A passenger purchased a third-class steamship ticket through the defendant company and embarked with baggage that was subsequently lost or not loaded. The passenger claimed he requested that his baggage be insured before accepting the ticket, asserting the agent told him insurance was unnecessary. The ticket contained printed terms limiting the carrier's liability for lost baggage to ten pounds (approximately $50). The passenger argued he could not read English and therefore should not be bound by the limitation clause.

The court upheld the liability limitation. Although the passenger could not read English, this fact alone does not void a contract when the passenger understood he needed to obtain a ticket to board the vessel and knew the document he received was a ticket. The passenger's failure to familiarize himself with the ticket's contents before boarding does not relieve him of its terms. The court distinguished an earlier case involving an illiterate shipper's agent where the bill of lading never reached the principal party. Here, the plaintiff personally accepted and acted upon the ticket as the governing contract between himself and the carrier.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a carrier's printed limitation-of-liability clause binds a passenger who cannot read the language in which it is written
Whether a passenger's inability to read English voids a transportation contract
Whether an oral request for baggage insurance before ticket acceptance modifies the carrier's printed liability limitations
Whether a passenger's failure to read contract terms before boarding relieves him of those terms

Procedural posture

The jury found the defendant carrier negligent in losing the plaintiff's baggage, and the trial court awarded damages limited to $50 under the ticket's liability cap; the plaintiff appealed by filing exceptions to the trial court's instructions on damages.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Braley, J.

The jury having found that through the defendant’s negligence the plaintiff’s baggage was lost, the only question is whether the ruling as to the measure of damages was correct.

The prepaid certificate for a third class passage, purchased of the defendant in this Commonwealth by the plaintiff’s son, was transmitted to his father; but whether in making the purchase the son acted as the plaintiff’s agent, or whether the certificate was a gift, does not appear. The plaintiff, having exchanged the certificate for a third class ticket at Liverpool, sailed on the steamship; but his baggage was not put on board or was lost during the voyage.

The contract was made in Liverpool. O’Regan v. Cunard Steamship Co. 160 Mass. 356. And, no evidence of the common law of England having been introduced, we assume that it is the same as our own. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. v. Flint, 187 Mass. 104, 107. By its terms as printed on the ticket the defendant’s liability for the loss of baggage was limited to ten pounds or, as agreed by the parties, the sum of $50, and ordinarily the limitation would be controlling. Garvan v. New York Central & Husdon River Railroad, 210 Mass. 275, 278, and cases cited.

But from the plaintiff’s testimony a finding would have been warranted that upon presentation of the certificate and before receiving the ticket the plaintiff, through an interpreter, asked the person in charge of the defendant’s ticket office to have his baggage insured, offering to pay therefor rather than to take any chance of loss. “I told him that I had valuable things, valuable articles, and I wanted it insured, and he said it was not necessary.” “It is not necessary . . . and it will come.”

While the exceptions state that he was unable “to read and write” the English language, this fact of itself would not avoid the contract. The plaintiff knew he could not embark or be cared for during the journey unless he obtained a ticket and that the paper received in exchange for the certificate was a ticket; and it is of no consequence that before embarking he failed to acquaint himself with the contents. Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co. 153 Mass. 553, 555. O’Regan v. Cunard Steamship Co. 160 Mass. 356, 359, 361.

The plaintiff relies on McKinney v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 217 Mass. 274, as stating a different rule. But, while in that case the shipper’s agent, who transacted the business, was illiterate, the bill of lading never reached the shipper; and.there was no evidence, as there is in the case at bar, that the contract relied on by the carrier had been mutually accepted and acted upon as forming the only contract between the parties. Boynton v. American Express Co. 221 Mass. 237. The limitation therefore was binding on the plaintiff.

S. L. Bailen & F. Leveroni, for the plaintiff.

E. E. Blodgett, S. R. Jones & A. C. Burnham, for the defendant.

And the instructions being correct, the exceptions must be overruled.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Given by Hitchcock, J., who, after the jury had returned answers to certain special questions, ordered them to return a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $50 with interest thereon from the date of the writ. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.