Union Pacific Railroad v. Burke
Headline: Ruling prevents a rail carrier from enforcing a low per-package valuation without offering a lower rate, upholding a shipper’s right to full invoice recovery when cargo is lost due to the carrier’s negligence.
Holding:
- Stops railroads using low declared package values to avoid full loss payments when no rate choice existed.
- Allows shippers to recover full invoice value for lost cargo carried under a single published rate.
- Requires carriers to give a real rate choice before limiting liability by undervalued declarations.
Summary
Background
S. Ontra & Brother shipped 56 cases of goods from Yokohama by ocean to San Francisco and then by rail to New York. The ocean bill of lading declared the goods valued at $100 per package. The cargo moved on published railroad schedules and was transferred to the Union Pacific’s custody. While in the Union Pacific’s care the goods were destroyed in a collision. The shipper’s successor sued for the full invoice value of $17,549.01. The railroad admitted liability but said recovery must be limited to $100 per package, totaling $5,600, under the bill of lading.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether a low declared package value can limit a carrier’s liability when the shipper had no real choice of rates. The carrier relied on an imported valuation clause in a uniform bill of lading. The Court explained that valuation limits are valid only when a shipper is offered a lower freight rate tied to accepting that valuation. Here, only one published rate applied east of San Francisco, so no rate choice existed. Because the carrier could not lawfully give such a choice, the valuation provision could not be enforced, and the common-law rule of full liability for loss by the carrier’s negligence controlled. The Court affirmed the judgment for the full invoice amount.
Real world impact
The decision prevents carriers from escaping full liability for lost cargo by inserting undervalued package declarations unless they actually offer a tied lower rate. Shippers gain stronger protection against undervaluation. Carriers must either accept full liability or give a genuine rate choice when seeking to limit recovery.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?