Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PATRICIA A. CRAY v. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES (01/14/55)

January 14, 1955

PATRICIA A. CRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE



Appeal, No. 188, April T., 1954, from order of County Court of Allegheny County, 1949, No. 1151, in case of Patricia A. Cray v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Francis Taptich, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

William G. Dickie, with him Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote, Reif & Robinson, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 276]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.,

In this action in trespass to recover for the loss of baggage checked with an interstate carrier of passengers by motor vehicle the jury returned a verdict for

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 277]

    the plaintiff in the sum of $221.00, the full amount of the loss. The court below granted defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $25.00, the limitation of liability provided by the tariff regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission for loss of baggage where there has been no declaration of excess value. This appeal followed.

On September 23, 1948, Patricia Cray, the plaintiff, purchased a transportation ticket from the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., the defendant, for a bus trip from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Los Angeles, California. The ticket was purchased at the bus terminal maintained by the defendant in Pittsburgh. At the time she purchased her ticket the plaintiff checked two pieces of luggage with the defendant. She testified: "I gave the luggage to the baggage agent and asked him if it was necessary to insure the baggage, because that was all my clothing and it was very valuable to me, and he said it was not necessary." Plaintiff was given a baggage check for her luggage. When she reached Los Angeles and presented her baggage check to reclaim her luggage she received one bag but did not receive the other - a leather bag containing clothes and some jewelry. This bag was never found or returned to the plaintiff. It is admitted that the value of the bag and contents was $221.00.

Appellant contends the appellee was negligent in that the carrier's employe with whom her baggage was checked gave misleading advice and information when he stated, in answer to her inquiry, that it was not necessary for her to insure her baggage. However, appellee contends it is bound by federal laws to operate under the Interstate Commerce Commission tariff regulations and under these regulations its liability is limited to $25.00 for the loss of the baggage. We

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 278]

    are, therefore, to determine whether the statement of the appellee's agent deprived appellant of a fair choice of alternative rates based on value and thus rendered ineffective the limitation of liability for loss of baggage contained in the tariff regulations of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.