| |
|
|
|
| Article Name: Contract vs. Common Carrier Status |
| Author: Missouri Lawyers Weekly |
| Volume: 2.2 |
| Article Summary: Where a courier service is limited its liability to loss of "valuable paper" in a contract with a bank; (2) refused to transport cash; (3) agreed to corztinue its courier ser- vice for the bank only if it was not held responsible for any cash trarzsported; and (4) refitsed to pay the bank`s losses when commercial deposits were stolen from the courier`s car, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that the courier service was a "contract" carrier rather than a "common" carrier so it could limit its liability contractually and the limitation was not against public policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
