476 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



coverJ* A common carrier cannot contract against failure 

 to provide suitable facilities for loading, unloading, water- 

 ing and feeding, as this is negligence.^^ 



There is nothing unreasonable or against public policy in 

 providing in a bill of lading for cattle shipped on deck that, 

 if necessary, they may be jettisoned for the safety of the ship, 

 without the ship-owner's incurring any liability.^* But if 

 sound cattle are thrown overboard in a mild storm, without 

 sufficient reason, the vessel will be Hable for the loss, and 

 a clause in the contract that the cattle are to be at the owner's 

 risk, the carrier not to be accountable for accident or mortal- 

 ity even when occasioned by neghgence or default, will not 

 exempt the latter from responsibility.'^'' Now, however, by 

 the act of February 13, 1893, if a vessel transporting merchan- 

 dise or property to or from any port in the United States is 

 seaworthy and properly equipped, neither the vessel nor her 

 owner or charterers shall be responsible for damages result- 

 ing from faults or errors in navigation or in the management 

 of the vessel.''^ 



It was held in a Michigan case that where the owner took 

 all risks of "loading, unloading, conveyance," etc., whether 

 from negligence, default or misconduct, this did not excuse 

 the company for not furnishing suitable cars.''® And a 

 special contract devolving on the owner the personal care 

 of the cattle with the risk of their escape or injury through 

 natural restiveness or viciousness, does not exonerate the 

 company from responsibility for failure to provide a safe 

 car.®" And though the owner assumes all risk except from 



"McFadden v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 343; Powell v. Pa. R. Co., 

 32 Pa. St. 414. 



" Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Amer. Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495. 



" The Enrique, 5 Hughes C. Ct. (U. S.) 275. 



" Compania de Navigation La Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104. 



"Act of February 13, 1893, Ch. 105; 27 Stat. L. 445. 



" Hawkins v. Great Western R. Co., 17 Mich. 57, 18 id. 427. And see 

 Potts V. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394. 



"■ Rhodes v. Louisv. & N. R. Co., 9 Bush (Ky.) 688. 



