General rule stated.

- The general rule is that the measure of damages for unreasonable delay by a common carrier in the delivery of goods shipped is the difference between their market value when they should have been delivered and their market value when they were delivered, with interest from the former date, less the freight, if unpaid. Mere unreasonable delay in transporting does not amount to conversion, so as to authorize the consignee, upon the arrival of the goods, to reject them and sue for their full value. The owner's remedy is to sue for the damages the owner has sustained by reason of the delay. Atlanta Coast Line R.R. v. Tifton Produce Co., 179 Ga. 624, 176 S.E. 624 (1934), answer conformed to, 50 Ga. App. 614, 179 S.E. 125 (1935).

The correct measure of damage is ordinarily the difference in the market value of the fruit at the point of shipment at the time the cars should have been furnished, and at the time they were actually furnished. Central of Ga. Ry. v. George P. Greene & Co., 41 Ga. App. 794, 154 S.E. 809 (1930).

Mitigation of damages.

- Where at the time of trial shipper had recovered the goods, the measure of its damages would be that for failure of the carrier to deliver the goods within a reasonable time, i.e., the difference between the market value at the time and place they should have been delivered and the market value at the time of actual delivery. The fact that the shipment on which the carrier claimed a lien was eventually returned to the shipper by court order before trial, and that shipper was able to sell it, would be relevant only in mitigation of the damages. Esquire Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Kennesaw Transp., Inc., 186 Ga. App. 367, 367 S.E.2d 569 (1988).

Damage rule not strictly applicable where goods destroyed.

- The rule of damages under former Civil Code 1910, § 2773 (see O.C.G.A § 46-9-43) did not strictly apply to an action for the recovery of the value of potatoes that have been totally destroyed. Louisville & N.R.R. v. Lovelace, 26 Ga. App. 286, 106 S.E. 6 (1921).

Recovery for full value where carrier negligently delays delivery.

- Where the evidence showed that at the time of the actual delivery the goods had been rendered valueless by the negligent delay of the carrier, under former Civil Code 1895, § 2319 (see O.C.G.A § 46-9-43), a recovery for the full value of the goods when and where they should have been delivered would be upheld. Southern Express Co. v. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 294, 57 S.E. 1066 (1907).

Contract contrary to section not valid.

- A common carrier cannot by special contract relieve itself from the measure of damages under former Civil Code 1910, § 2773 (see O.C.G.A § 46-9-43), where the goods were damaged by reason of its negligence. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Pruitt, 24 Ga. App. 748, 102 S.E. 182 (1920).

Cited in Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett & Co., 119 Ga. 489, 46 S.E. 657 (1904); Western & A.R.R. v. Summerour, 139 Ga. 545, 77 S.E. 802 (1913); Southern Ry. v. Bloch, 18 Ga. App. 767, 90 S.E. 656 (1916); Southern Ry. v. Bunch, 25 Ga. App. 45, 102 S.E. 462 (1920).

ALR.

- Provision in carrier's contract requiring notice of damage or loss, as applicable to loss of market due to delay, 1 A.L.R. 538.

Measure and elements of damages for loss or delay in delivering baggage of traveling salesman, 25 A.L.R. 76.

Carrier's liability for delay, or damages incident to delay, in transportation, due to strike, 28 A.L.R. 503; 45 A.L.R. 919.

Liability of carrier for loss of profits due to failure to deliver or delay in delivering goods to salesman, 42 A.L.R. 711.

Measure of damages for carrier's conversion of goods, 56 A.L.R. 1171.

Liability of carrier or other bailee because of misinformation as to time or place of arrival or storage of goods, 56 A.L.R. 1382.

Wholesale or retail price as measure of damages against carrier for loss of goods, 67 A.L.R. 1427.

Liability of carrier to punitive damages with respect to subject of interstate shipment, 107 A.L.R. 1446.

When carrier put upon notice that delay in transportation or delivery will cause special damages, 166 A.L.R. 1034.

Shipper's misdescription of goods as affecting carrier's liability for loss or damage, 1 A.L.R.3d 736.