The laws of movement in a very rigorous way they treat the carrier's liability for damage in shipment. In some cases, however, the legislature has provided for the carrier favorable legal presumptions, to help him defend the claims of injured, where there are serious doubts, whether the damage occurred during transportation.
Quantity shortages
By virtue of art. 65 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. operator is responsible for shipping loss resulting from the adoption of the transporter for its issue on the basis of risk. For loss shall be the difference between the weight of the shipment or the number of individual elements making up the consignment existing on the date of acceptance of your shipment and at the time of issue. The defect can speak only for, the absence of a specific item does not affect the other parts of the consignment. So if there is a specific object transport in parts, failure of one of these parts must be treated as damage, and not as a loss, because the part is essential for the assembly of the article.
It is important to distinguish between the loss and the loss of the consignment. While in the latter case of loss due to the lack of acknowledgment of receipt of shipment by the consignee on the waybill, whereas in case of loss, it is necessary observance by a person authorized acts of care under the law of the transport, in particular the drawing damage protocol. None of these acts will generally lead to the extinction of a claim against the carrier.
So how do we distinguish between a loss of loss? It is, that the loss of the consignment can not be said, when the recipient reaches any part of the consignment, even supposed to be the same package. In this case, even the absence of all moving parts will also be treated as a loss.
Formed on similar principles to the carrier's liability for defects in the CMR Convention, except that in the Convention, which bear the name of partial loss.
Natural losses
For certain types of weight loss products is a natural consequence of their properties. As is emphasized in the literature (In. Mountain: Commentary on the provisions of the contract of carriage and freight forwarding) cause of such defects are the natural physical processes, chemical or biological, that there are goods in transit, such as drying, evaporation, Freeze, volatilization, adhesion, penetrate the container walls, rozkurz, washout, respiration, fermentation or rotting. Therefore, in accordance with art. 67 st. 1 pr. wire. provided, that in the situations described above the carrier is liable only for that portion of the loss, losses that exceed the standards established in applicable law or customary, unless the damage resulted from causes not justify the use of standards acceptable loss. At the same time to in paragraph. 2 includes the authority to determine by regulation standards for natural losses.
At the moment there are no laws specifying the amount of allowable losses. The carrier can thus rely exclusively on customary norms, which in many cases can be derived from standards based on existing orders, years ago the Minister of Transport.
The injured party can show, that the loss arose from other causes than the natural characteristics of the product, but proof of such fact alone is not, that the losses are greater than the time standards adopted. In this case, the carrier is liable for the loss of just in excess of the standard.
Treated differently on the issue of natural losses CMR. No separate provision in the, which zwalniałby carrier from liability for a certain level of losses. So be sure to refer to Article. 17 paragraph. 4 lit d, according to which the carrier is not liable for damages resulting from the inherent product, which can cause total or partial loss or damage, in particular by dry, leakage, normal wastage, etc.. In international transport so there is no loss of natural boundaries, over which the carrier is responsible. Even so in the case of partial loss of a substantial part of the consignment, the carrier - unlike in transport law - will be able to completely absolve itself of responsibility. The carrier does not even need to prove, that the loss was because of the natural properties of the product. According to art. 18 paragraph. 2 Convention Prima facie evidence is sufficient, that due to the partial loss of the facts might have occurred for this reason, and the person entitled to demonstrate, that it was not.
Examined the weight and quantity of shipment by the carrier
Transport Law also contains other beneficial to the carrier for loss alleged shipment. According to art. 66 paragraph. 1 the carrier is not liable for such losses, if the mass and number of packages have not been reviewed by the carrier the registration of, and the shipment was delivered without a trace violations. If the shipment is transported in a closed form of transportation (container) additional condition exclusions of liability is no damage to the seals on the container sender. Again, however, in the case of container transport is a fundamental premise of no violation of the consignment. Thus, if the consignment will be delivered undamaged and sealed container, but will bear the traces of violation, carrier shall be responsible for the general principles.
In the above-mentioned situations, the presumption may be rebutted, If the person entitled proves, that the damage at the time of acceptance of your shipment until it is. It should be noted, that the carrier is entitled to invoke the presumption of art. 66 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. only in the case, if the sender did not require him to convert the packages to be weighed or. This rule does not result directly from the provisions of the Act, but it is widely accepted.
Other defects in container business
Carriage of consignments in containers can be beneficial to entrepreneurs, not only in the event of shortages in a shipment. Art. 66 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. constitutes the, that If the shipment arrived at destination in shipping container, not compromised, closed by the sender and of not compromised, folded by the seals, presumed to be, that no damage occurred during transport. This provision is therefore applicable to all the damage in shipment. The type of regulation has profound reasons, as the carrier for carriage to give the closed and sealed container, is not possible to check the status of the consignment, and therefore under Article. 781 § 2 k.c. is assumed, that the shipment was in good condition. So if not art. 66 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. carrier are generally not able to free himself from liability even if at the time of shipment was damaged give. It is important to both, by closing and sealing the shipping container made the sender. When you participate in the activities of the carrier, presumption is not applicable, because the carrier has the opportunity to examine the consignment.
Also, if this presumption, the person entitled may lead to its overthrow, showing, that the damage occurred during transportation, which in many cases, however, may not be able to.
It should be noted, that described regulation only applies to transport containers such as containers, wagony itp. And will not apply to items such as sealed. in cartons or plastic containers. The opposite position is often presented by the courier company is not correct, and judicial practice is not supported.
And I have a problem… Company X by an order issued by me was to pick up the goods transport in the number of 52 katrony, 350 kg, cartons in bulk from Belgium to Przemysl. During the interview on Trans, clearly written, of any non-compliance to inform me, although in my opinion, without this provision is a standard. According to the order, car appeared on the unloading of a particular date, the, that other means of transport, a completely different carrier, a ów “new” carrier is a set of documents, and in the original CMR from Belgium, which covers 53 cartons, weight 385 kg, CMR issued by another carrier, who took me to the order, claiming a 52 cartons and weight 385 kg, także plik invoice ITP. Because the invoices were related to the 53 cartons, protocol drawn up in stock, on lack of 1 cardboard, signed a protocol driver, that the goods brought. He was signed to CMR 52 cartons. I got a load from the client to the missing merchandise, of 1600 USD, byl carriage waiting 300 euro. Immediately after receiving the load from the client sends a debit note to the carrier, which the order received, to the same value, as evidence of the burden we also sent the attached note, I received from the customer. After a while I got the answer, that the carrier did not feel obliged, I had an order for 52 cartons and basically has everything in the nose. We sent another letter, and underlined with the accompanying regulations CMR document signed by the driver. Once again another time, the carrier sends me documents (center in February 2012) the attached letter, to claim from insurance claims (here gives the name and policy number, The same documents TRANS, Although this authorization is no longer the carrier), and when we try to do turns out to be, that the policy adopted in February 2011, was broken in March 2011 (transport took place in October). In the meantime gets from his legal adviser przedsądowne request for payment for services provided. What to do in this situation?
I ask for documents to e-mail podesłanie, analysis because without them it is difficult to answer.
I also have a somewhat contentious situation. Well, we hope the plant pieces of goods imported from certain suppliers (even if the packaging is intact), However, CMR is not registered in the number of units and number of packages and weight. I would add, that the product is calculated by the carrier and sometimes it takes about 3 hours – after the signed terms of shipping documents, and the driver may depart. In such a case it is the proper operation of our website? Several carriers sent a memo to us for the outage load – whether the law zdogne? Or, merchandise you'd have to be calculated assuming the number of units should be entered on the document CMR, that would also be counted on to grant? As in this case to proceed in partnership with carriers?
The recipient has the right to examine compliance with the data package provided in the consignment, and if the letter is attached packingowa account or list of these documents also. If these additional documents were not, carrier can expect to see only the number of packages and weight. On the other hand, if domestic transport in each case the recipient has the right to request that a detailed verification of the consignment on receipt. However, if the, check reveals that no gaps, carrier may charge the recipient a fee resulting from the tariff. However, since almost none of the carriers there is no such charges in its tariff, You can safely take the risk. As for the debit notes are usually they are not documented in any way – it is difficult to explicitly calculate how much it is worth a few hours' stop the carrier. But the best for the future to enter details of the consignment note or attach to it a list of packingową.
Sir Paul
Moge prosić o pomoc jak należy postępować w poniższym przypadku?
W momencie dostawy, pracownik magazynu sprawdza czy fizyczna ilość palet zgadza się, z ilością wpisaną na dokumentach, po przeliczeniu przeważnie wszystko jest ok. Po około 1 dniu kiedy towar zostanie rozlokowany na magazynie wychodzi na jaw, that the missing ( for example, 1000 sztuk ) jednej z części. Pracownik magazynu nie mógł sprawdzić tego podczas rozładunku i zrobić odpowiedniego zapisu w CMR ponieważ rozłożenie i przeliczenie wszystkich części ( większość jest mała gabarytowo) i liczenie ich zajeło by cały dzień. Jeżeli w CMR nie ma żadnego wpisu o rozbieżności ilościowej, można dochodzić praw do przewoźnika? Może jest wypracowana praktyka dzieki której można uniknąć takich sytuacji.
Thank you for your help
@ Grzesiek
Jeśli magazynier nie ma czasu przeliczyć towaru, to jest to ryzyko odbiorcy. Jeśli bowiem wada jest widoczna, to brak wpisu w CMR powoduje powstanie domniemania, że towar dotarł na miejsce w należytym stanie. To odbiorca musi więc udowodnić, że towar zaginął w czasie transportu, a nie później, co często jest niemożliwe, o ile nie ma monitoringu, which implies, że towaru na magazynie nikt nie ruszał.
Sir Paul
Jak w takim razie mogę się zabezpieczyć przed brakami ilościowymi w przypadku gdy wada nie jest widoczna? specyfika branży, w której pracuje nie pozwala na fizyczne liczenie materiałów – trwało by to po kilkanaście godzina na dostawe ( a dostaw mamy dziennie kilkadziesiąt ).
Czy przykładowy zapis w CMR “ilość palet zgodna – brak fizycznej weryfikacji ilościowej części” pomoże coś w rozstrzygnięciu ewentualnego sporu?
@ Grzesiek
Such a provision would be approximately, provided that the shipper confirm it on the waybill. Without confirmation should simply refuse to transport.
Hello,
Mr. patrons, as where seals are intact, and there was an interference with the construction of the container? I mean drilling out rivets, screws, picture of hinges, etc..
In my case it is documented in the form of loss of weight in the weight receipt of the container at the port. In addition, inspects a container, which states, that instead of goods shipped in the middle there is a gravel. How to prove the guilt of subcontractors lądowemu my opinion theft ?
@ victim
First law of lading in this case only create a presumption, which can be rebutted, in this case, it is relatively easy to refute comparisons, weight. Secondly, there are indeed serious doubts, or in this case at all, such a presumption arises due to the scale of damage container. In my opinion, you have full grounds to claim damages.
Mam pytanie 3mce temu dostarczalem 3kartony do sklepu odbiorca podbil ze odebral 3 kartony po 3mcach stwierdzil ze jednsk jednego brakuje co w takim razie mam zrobic
@ Filip
Musiałby udowodnić, że rzeczywiście jeden karton nie został dostarczony. Jeśli nie miał nagrania odbioru przesyłki, to będzie bardzo trudne.
A jesli by udowodnil ze dostal 2 kartony a nie 3 to co w takim razie grozi za pomylke bo nie ukrywam ze moglem sie pomylic przy wydawaniu ale tez odbiorca podpisal ze odebral 3 cartons
@ Filip
Jeśli udowodni, że dostał dwa kartony, to wówczas istnieją różne możliwości. Jeśli transport miał charakter międzynarodowy, może domagać się w każdym wypadku odszkodowania. Jeśli krajowy, tylko w sytuacji udowodnienia rażącego niedbalstwa przewoźnika. W innym wypadku roszczenia wygasają wobec niezgłoszenia zastrzeżeń przy odbiorze.
Byl to transport krajowy no i ptawdopodobnie sie pomylilem i ten jeden karton dalem gdzies indziej a co to jest razace niedbalsywo
@ Filip
Jeśli tak było, to wciąż istnieją roszczenia po stronie odbiorcy.
Czyli bede musial zwrocic koszt czy grozi mi jakas odpowiedzialnosc karna
@ Filip
Tylko odpowiedzialność cywilna. Żadna odpowiedzialność karna Panu nie grozi.
witam mam pytanie wysyłaliśmy firmą kurierską do konsumenta towar został on uszkodzony w trakcie przewozu, konsument nie sprawdził przy kurierze szkody, a dopiero następnego dnia poinformował nas (the sender) o uszkodzeniu i sporządzony został protokół. Uszkodzony towar wrócił do nas, ale innym kurierem. I moje pytanie jest czy jako nadawca mamy legitymację procesową aby wystąpić z pozwem przeciwko przewoźnikowi(reklamacje firma kurierska nie uwzględniła)? Czy teraz kiedy konsument już odebrał towary to powinien to zrobić konsument?
@ Barry
Z chwilą odbioru przesyłki roszczenia przeszły na odbiorcę, więc żeby nadawca mógł ich dochodzić, konieczna jest umowa cesji że strony odbiorcy.
Panie Pawle dziękuje za odpowiedź, a jak to się robi? Umowa zwykła cesji? Na co się powołać?
@ Barry
Zwykła umowa cesji.
Hello,
Odnosząc się do prawa przewozowego art. 66 – na kim ciąży obowiązek udowodnienia, że przesyłka została dostarczona bez śladu naruszenia? Czy obowiązkowy jest wpis na protokole o braku naruszeniu przesyłki? Co jeśli takiego wpisu nigdzie nie ma?
Regards!
@ gaufrette
Formalnie rzecz biorąc, to przewoźnik powinien udowodnić, że towar dostarczono bez śladu naruszenia. Jeśli zatem jest protokół z brakami ilościowymi sporządzony na rozładunku i brak jest informacji, że nie ma śladów naruszenia, to przewoźnik musi użyć innych środków dowodowych, to prove, że takich naruszeń nie było.
Sir Paul, Thanks for your answer. Pana blog to kopalnia wiedzy, I greet!
Hello,
Poproszę o informację co zrobić w sytuacji, gdy w dostawie do odbiorcy stwierdzony został brak części towaru, kierowca potwierdził to podpisem na dokumencie WZ i/lub protokole rozbieżności, a magazyn nie stwierdził nadwyżki tego towaru w magazynie. Przesyłka była oryginalnie zapakowana, bez uszkodzeń folii. I would add, że zarówno transport jak i obsługa magazynowa są wykonywane przez tego samego operatora logistycznego.
@ Anne
W takim wypadku odpowiedzialność za zaginięcie towaru ponosi przewoźnik i do niego należy się zwrócić z roszczeniami.
Naughty. I also licked the calf.