Opinion
No. 78-122
Decided April 19, 1979.
Beef processing company appealed a judgment in its action in breach of contract and negligence against a trucking company.
Affirmed
1. CARRIERS — Goods Damaged In Transit — Recovery by Shipper — Prima Facie Case — Elements. In order for a shipper to recover from a carrier for goods damaged in transit, he must establish a prima facie case by showing delivery in good condition to the carrier, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of damages.
2. No Proof — Delivery Temperature — Meat — Delivery in "Good Condition" — Not Shown — Judgment for Defendant — Proper. Where, in action by beef processor against trucking company to recover for meat that spoiled in shipment, the beef processor failed to prove that the meat was loaded on the carrier's refrigerated truck at a proper temperature, it thereby failed to prove its prima facie case that the meat was delivered to the carrier in "good condition," and thus trial court properly entered judgment for defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Howard M. Kirshbaum, Judge.
Edwin B. Fieman, for plaintiff-appellant.
Leland S. Huttner, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, a beef processing company, brought this action in breach of contract and negligence against the defendant Curtis, Inc. a trucking company, alleging that defendant inadequately refrigerated a truckload of fresh beef with the result that it was delivered in an unsatisfactory condition. Following a trial to the court, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and we affirm.
On August 27, 1971, 39,000 lbs. of fresh beef packaged in cardboard cartons were loaded onto defendant's truck at plaintiff's processing plant. The bill of lading directed that the temperature of the refrigerated trailer be maintained at 10 to 15 degrees fahrenheit. Upon arrival at the destination point in California two and one-half days later, the meat was found to be excessively warm, with temperatures ranging from 30 to 50 degrees. However, the temperature of the refrigeration unit was found to be within the required 10 to 15 degree range. Because of its warm condition a substantial portion of the meat spoiled and was rejected by the buyer.
Plaintiff brought this action contending that the damage was caused by defendant's negligence in failing to maintain the refrigeration unit at the proper temperature. Defendant presented testimony that the refrigeration unit operated properly throughout the trip, and that the probable cause of the meat arriving in a warm condition was because the meat was overly warm at the time it was loaded. Conflicting evidence was presented as to the temperature at which plaintiff maintained its meat, the effects of 10 to 15 degree refrigeration, and the probable temperature at which the meat was shipped. The trial court resolved this conflicting evidence and concluded that the 10 to 15 degree temperature range specified in the bill of lading would maintain a constant meat temperature but would not substantially lower the temperature of the meat during a two and one-half day trip. Thus, the warm temperature of the meat upon arrival was found to have been caused by the inadequate chilling of the meat before it was received for loading. Upon a review of the record, we must reject plaintiff's argument that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the factual findings of the trial court. Since there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the trial court's findings, they will not be disturbed on review. Linley v. Hanson, 173 Colo. 239, 477 P.2d 453 (1970).
[1] In order for a shipper to recover from a carrier for goods damaged in transit the shipper must establish a prima facie case by showing delivery in good condition to the carrier, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of damages. Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Elmore Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 L.Ed.2d 194 (1964).
[2] Here, plaintiff's assertion that testimony by a federal inspector about the condition of the meat prior to shipment was sufficient to establish a prima facie case is without merit. The inspector did not issue an official inspection certificate, so the cases cited by plaintiff regarding evidentiary value of such certificates are inapposite. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the inspector had direct knowledge of the temperature of the meat at the time of shipment or that the alleged temperature at the time of shipment was proper for the meat to arrive in satisfactory condition.
Thus, the trial court properly found that plaintiff had failed to prove that the meat was loaded at a proper temperature and properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to prove its prima facie case that the meat was delivered to the carrier in "good condition". See Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 313 F.2d 864, (7th Cir. 1963).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE KELLY concur.