Common carriers were held liable as insurers of goods, with only five excepting causes

Evidence

As of 1850 mo+t American courts had accepted the basDinrules of the English common law M that bailees, generally, were liable for loss or damage to goods entrusted to them only if they failed to exercise due care, but that (2) “common carriers” were liable for loss or damage to goods as “insurers” of their safety, except when the harm was brought about solely by certain specified causeg4 In the usual enumeration of the time, five such excepting causes-were recognized: an act of God; an act of a public enemy; an act of state; an act of the shipper; or an inherent defect in the goods themselves. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3572

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Problem No. 4’s core inquiry about contracting around liability, echoing ch55’s point that lawyers craft explicit clauses because courts hesitate to imply them. — connects to: Courts’ instinct that carriage is a vital public function outran their stated rationales — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3599; All-risk insurance by the railroad could eliminate the whole liability question — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3656