Liability of road transport of goods based on the principle of risk and is significantly enhanced compared to the standard rules of contractual liability - it fits regardless of their guilt for the total or partial loss of goods and for damage thereto, which will occur between the time of acceptance of the goods and its release. However, there is a catalog of circumstances excluding strict liability of the carrier. Some of them allows a relative easy to avoid by the carrier having to pay damages in a shipment zaszkodę. Practice shows, however,, many provisions favorable to carriers they are used occasionally.
The temporal extent of responsibility
Both the national and international road transport of goods zakresodpowiedzialności carrier for the loss of the goods is shaped like. According to art. 65 paragraph. 1 pr. wire. i art. 17 paragraph. 1 CMR the carrier is required to the custody of the goods from the moment of acceptance of your shipment until its release. This creates a presumption, żewszystkie for damage in shipment, that arose in this period, responsibility of the carrier. This principle reinforces the content art. 781 § 2 k.c. i art. 9 paragraph. 2 CMR which, that in the absence of any such objections entered into the carrier bill of lading shall be, ijego packaging that the product appeared to be in good condition at the time the carrier. In this case, the carrier must prove, that the product was defective at the stage of uploading it doprzewozu. Frequently such evidence will be very difficult - of course there may be cases, the carrier will be able to rely on photographic documentation made during załadunkubądź on expert opinion stating, indicates that the size of defects, that they had formed przedprzewozem. As a rule, however, the exact determination of these circumstances it will be impossible.
Exclusions ordinary
If the carrier fails to rebut the presumption, that the damage czasieprzewozu, He remains a reference to the circumstances provided for in the, którewyłączają its liability for damage in shipment. The transport law and the CMR Convention, they are regulated in a similar way, but can also see some major differences.
Very similar in both acts exonerate itself looks like the first condition - according to art. 65 paragraph. 2 pr. wire. carrier is not liable, if the damage resulted from przyczynwystępujących on the sender or recipient fault by the carrier. Then, according to art. 17 paragraph. 2 CMR provides for exemption from liability of the carrier, when the damage has been caused by the fault of the person authorized by the instructions or not resulting from the carrier. Polish transport law in this case is more liberal and does not require the carrier to prove fault on the side of the sender or the receiver - on the ground KonwencjiCMR carrier must generally prove the guilt of the person entitled (except in the case of an order). What are the circumstances on which side of the person entitled can cause damage? Examples are the wrong choice of means of transport, improper fulfillment shipping documents or give incorrect instructions to the carrier.
Another similar condition exempting the carrier is natural właściwościtowaru. In this case, the transport law is more forgiving for the carrier, because art. 65 paragraph. 2 refers generally to the characteristics of the goods, while art. 17 paragraph. 2 CMR mentions only a defect in their product. The doctrine emphasizes the, przesłankaogólnych characteristics of a product that should be used with caution and is not justified the exemption of the carrier from liability for damage caused by natural właściwościprzesyłki, If the correct choice of technology transfer and its proper execution could prevent the loss. In practice, therefore the Polish regulation is understood to be relatively narrow and therefore not significantly different from the approach adopted in the CMR Convention.
Much greater difference exists in the case of the third condition, which allows to avoid liability. In the Polish transport law that is the force majeure, while in the CMR Convention, be it, which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which could not prevent. Force majeure is not defined anywhere, but usually in the literature it is described as an extraordinary event unforeseeable and unavoidable external. On the basis of transport law force majeure is understood to be relatively narrowly, and the Supreme Court in one of the cases found, for example,, that the loss of the consignment as a result of armed robbery is not a force majeure, which excludes the liability of the carrier. Usually much more broadly interpreted the condition in the CMR Convention, and though it is not sufficient just here to demonstrate the absence of fault of the carrier in the damage, Many cases do not constitute force majeure within the meaning of Polish transport law can be considered as a basis to exclude the carrier's liability. An example already cited a case of robbery, that in some of the judgments of the Supreme Court has been classified as a circumstance excluding the carrier's liability under KonwencjiCMR.
As a condition referring to the circumstances, which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which could not prevent, can be interpreted broadly, in the Convention art. 17 paragraph. 3 clearly indicated, that the carrier can not claim to be free from liability by reason of the defective vehicle, he speaks for the performance of the carriage, neither the fault of the person or staff person, in which the vehicle rented. This position is confirmed by the jurisprudence of foreign courts. For example, in one of the judgments of the Belgian court found, zaszkodę that formed by the flat tire on the vehicle corresponds to the carrier, since the puncture is generally a vehicle defect.
Burden of proof
The essence of strict liability is shifting to a person, which implied odpowiedzialnośćjest, burden of proof, evidence egzoneracyjnych. It is no different in the case of the above circumstances. This carrier is required to demonstrate, that the damage resulted from causes, in which the carrier is off. Is not sufficient to prove, that there were certain circumstances provided for in the regulations as force majeure or fault of the person entitled - it must be demonstrated, they are the ones that caused the damage. In may cases, such evidence will be seriously hampered. This does not mean, disputes that carriers for damage to the goods are at a disadvantage. Both the transport law and in fact CMR provides a number of exemptions the privileged, that strongly preferred distribute the burden of proof. This will be discussed in the next post.
The problem arises with the interpretation of Article. 17 paragraph. 2 Convention in the context of due diligence (art. 355 k. c.) when choosing (bad …) subcontractor by the carrier :/ lack of literature (?)
Literature is a lot that is not only in Poland 🙁 recommend reading the literature tab – Foreign items listed there really thoroughly analyze the provisions of the Convention. Of course you can not underestimate the pioneering work of Dr.. Wesolowski, but foreign postings are much more complex.
Co samego the art. 17 paragraph. 2 in the context of selection of contractors (often ordinary thief) – I personally think, that you can not apply this provision in the case, when the damage was caused by the wrongful conduct of the subcontractor. Even if the, it is a fact, the main carrier could not have foreseen and prevented – and it is very doubtful if all sides can be heard of cases where dishonest contractors – it still does not have it on the significance of. In accordance with Article. 3 Convention for the actions of the subcontractor as the main carrier is responsible for their own. So, if a subcontractor stole the goods, the person authorized carrier shall be liable as if he stole it, which for obvious reasons, precludes the application of Article. 17 paragraph. 2.
Unfortunately, cases of fraudulent contractors are situations, when carriers are at a very weak position. It is worth to buy a good insurance – Unfortunately, most insurance companies in the market does not cover such cases, the insurance. We must therefore either find yourself well, or go to a specialist such as. broker specializing in transportation insurance.
Thank you for your reply and I bow my head 🙂
art. 3 is an argument, but I think I met with the Polish court ruling (appeals or the Supreme Court), that the observance of due diligence in this case allows you to apply the conditions in Article. 17 paragraph. 2 (It does not prejudge the matter). Tomorrow I will try to find a decision. Regards
Thank you, We are happy to thank 🙂 zapoznałbym of this judgment – not stumbled on it in any program of Polish legal, and seems to be quite controversial. Regards
Unfortunately. None of the judgments (np. III CKN 23/98 – Here in transit robbery) does not address the issue of due diligence (Having regard to the professional nature of) in the selection of subcontractors. The Convention is much more severe :/ Thank you for your help. I will keep track of publications.
I'm glad, I could help 🙂 If you ever run into the Polish court ruling on this issue, certainly let you know. But given the very modest Polish law of the CMR Convention, surely there is nothing to count on this in the near future.
Hello,
whether the condition that refers to circumstances, which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which could not prevent refers to a situation, in which there was a traffic accident the fault of the other road? I have a statement of the offender collision. In such a case, I'm a party as a carrier, whether the offender collision?
It is, that such circumstances are exceptional. Traffic Collision fault of another actor so it is not treated as a circumstance exempting liability of the carrier. However, you can claim compensation from the perpetrator of a collision.
And what about the liability of the carrier for the goods was burnt due to spontaneous combustion of the goods of another sender?
@ Liability of the carrier
It depends on the circumstances of the case, but as a rule, the carrier will be responsible for merchandise burned, but will have a claim to the sender of the goods, which has spontaneously.
Dear Sir,
czy mógłby mi Pan podać sygnaturę dotyczącą orzecznictwa belgijskiego w sytuacji pęknięcia opony. Thanks in advance.
Hello Sir Paul,
We have recently been done to the transport of goods in international transport. Delivery of goods in accordance with the order was to be 24.06.16 r. in the dopołudniowych, but as a result of collision [not our fault – We hit our tractor-trailer Hungary foreigner and had zholować tractor to the country and sent to Hungary, another tractor on replacing] delivery is 25.06.16 about 20:00.
Principal amount charged to us 8.000 EUR for the delay in shipment, despite, that according to Article. 26 Convention did not have any entry in the consignment, so we know, he did not have such a right.
We are concerned, however, about this, or you are entitled to charge us for the delay in delivery in accordance with Article. 23 paragraph. 5 Convention [jednokrotnością transportable, udowodniłby if the amount of damage suffered as a result of delay in delivery], despite, that occurred in our case circumstances, which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which could not prevent.
@ Monika
Po pierwsze zakładam, że kwota 8.000 EUR przekracza wartość frachtu, więc już tu będzie pierwsze ograniczenie. Po drugie należy przeanalizować dokładnie okoliczności wypadku i ocenić, czy rzeczywiście kierowca nie był w żaden sposób w stanie go uniknąć przy zachowaniu najwyższej staranności. Sam fakt, że wypadek spowodowała inna osoba jeszcze nie jest przesądzający. Dopiero ustalenie, że kierowca nie miał żadnej możliwości manewru, może prowadzić do uwolnienia od odpowiedzialności.
Tak kwota 8000 EUR, przekracza wartość frachtu wielokrotnie :)))
Z notatki policyjnej wynika, iż nasz kierowca jest poszkodowany, tamten – sprawca dostał mandat.
@ Monika
To nie wystarczy. Trzeba udowodnić, że kierowca nie był w stanie nic zrobić, żeby uniknąć wypadku.
I understand, dziękuję za rzeczową odpowiedź i dobrze, że Pan tu jest. Miłego tygodnia :))
Good morning, zastanawia mnie kwestia rozdziału odpowiedzialności przewoźnika na zasadzie ryzyka od odpowiedzialności kontraktowej przewoźnika. Z art. 443 kc wynika przemienność sposobu dochodzenia odszkodowania.
Odpowiedzialność na zasadzie ryzyka dotyczy szkody na osobie i mieniu, which means, że odnosi się do każdej szkody wyrządzonej np. nadawcy towaru. Odpowiedzialność ta jest niezależna od winy przewoźnika.
Odpowiedzialność zaś z art. 471 kc powstaje w sytuacji, gdy przewoźnik ponosi winę.
Jak zatem sytuacja wygląda w sytuacji, gdy strony wiąże umowa przewozu.
Czy w takim przypadku odpowiedzialność za szkodę powiedzmy w związku z niepodstawieniem pojazdu przez przewoźnika pod załadunek towaru, czy szkody powstałej w wyniku nieprawidłowego napełnienia cysterny powstaje niezależnie od winy przewoźnika?
Hello,
a co w przypadku podpalenia pojazdu przez osobę trzecią, który załadowany towarem stał na parkingu oświetlonym, ogrodzonym, chronionym? W kontekście art. 17 paragraph. 2 CMR ?
@ Maciej
Odpowiedzialność za niepodstawienie w terminie jest uregulowana na zasadach ogólnych, więc konieczny jest element zawinienia. Odpowiedzialność za przesyłkę jest na zasadzie ryzyka, więc za nieprawidłowe napełnienie odpowiada przewoźnik niezależnie od winy – oczywiście o ile czynności ładunkowe był w jego gestii.
@ Piotr M
Są wyroki polskich sądów uznających takie sytuacje za leżące poza odpowiedzialności przewoźnika.