Facts
- William J. Healy deposited a handbag in the railroad’s parcel room at its Albany station and received a small duplicate coupon.
- The coupon’s face directed the holder to “See Conditions on back.”
- The back contained printed conditions, including a limitation stating the company would not be liable for loss or damage exceeding $10; the limiting language was in fine print except for the words “ten dollars.”
- Healy placed the coupon in his pocket without reading it, and no employee called his attention to any liability limitation.
- When Healy returned later that evening and presented the coupon, the parcel-room attendant discovered coupons had been mismatched and Healy’s handbag had been delivered to someone else by mistake.
- The handbag was never recovered; its value was proved as $70.10.
- The railroad conceded responsibility for the loss but asserted the coupon limited liability to $10.
- The relationship was a bailment for hire for safekeeping in a parcel room, not an incident of transportation.
Issues
- Whether a bailee for hire may enforce a $10 limitation-of-liability term printed on a parcel-room claim coupon when the bailor did not read the term and had no notice sufficient to imply assent.
- Whether the claim coupon functioned as a contract incorporating substantive limitations, or primarily as an identification token for return of deposited property.
Decision
- The Appellate Division affirmed judgment for Healy for $70.10 (plus costs), holding the printed $10 limitation was not binding under the circumstances.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with costs and issued no opinion.
Legal Principles
- A limitation-of-liability clause on a claim check or similar receipt is not enforceable against a bailor absent actual notice or notice sufficient to imply assent.
- In a bailment for hire for safekeeping, the bailee cannot materially reduce its ordinary responsibility through an inconspicuous, uncommunicated term on an identification token.
- A clause purporting to bind a customer by “acceptance” of a coupon does not establish agreement where the customer neither knew of the term nor had attention directed to it.
Conclusion
Because the plaintiff lacked notice and did not assent to the fine-print $10 limitation on the parcel-room coupon, the railroad remained liable as a bailee for the full proven value of the lost handbag, and the judgment for the full amount was affirmed on appeal.