Carmack Amendment

167 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Edward and Nancy Hughes v. United van Lines, Inc.
  829 F.2d 1407· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-11 ·cited 49×
  The Carmack Amendment preempts state and common law remedies for loss or damage to goods during interstate transit, and the defendants properly limited their liability under the amendment.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Sandlin
  75 Fla. 539· Fla.· 1918-04-13 ·cited 43×
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad appeals a judgment for the value of a shipment of harness destroyed by fire while in the railroad's warehouse. The court reverses because the case involves an interstate shipment governed by the Carmack Amendment, which limits a carrier's liability to
• United States v. Miss. Valley Barge Line Co.
  285 F.2d 381· 8th Cir.· 1960-12-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the government bill of lading constituted the contract for through carriage, making the Barge Line liable for damages under common law principles, and that the Carmack Amendment's applicability was a jurisdictional issue to be determined by the district court.
• James K.T. Hunter and Gina F. Brandt v. United van Lines
  746 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule precludes removal of state law claims asserted to be preempted by federal law.
• Fulton v. Chicago
  481 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding party responsibilities for loading machinery was substantially correct and did not warrant reversal.
• Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Line
  877 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against Indian River and in its determination regarding Eller's entitlement to COGSA limitations, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• Am. Synthetic Rubber Corp. & Am. Rubber & Chem. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  422 F.2d 462· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge believes the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the facts of this case.
• Chandler v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc.
  374 F.2d 129· 4th Cir.· 1967-02-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the shipper's signature on documents limiting liability was not necessarily binding, as issues of fact existed regarding whether the shipper understood the nature of the documents and whether his failure to read them was excusable under the circumstances.
• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass'n
  211 So. 2d 25· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-05-29 ·cited 29×
  Lake Region Packing Association sued Seaboard Air Line Railroad for negligent delay in transporting fresh tangerines from Florida to Philadelphia, resulting in market loss. The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that a common carrier owes a duty to exercis
• Swift Textiles, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.
  799 F.2d 697· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 28×
  A domestic shipment that is a continuation of foreign commerce is subject to the Carmack Amendment, and a statute of limitations incorporated by reference in a bill of lading, even if non-mandatory, is enforceable if the shipper's agent prepared the bill of lading and the limitat
• A. M. Collins & Co. v. Panama R. Co.
  197 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-27 ·cited 26×
  A corporate stevedore is liable for its own negligence, and limitations on a carrier's liability do not shield the stevedore from such responsibility.
• Delphi Frosted Foods Corp. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.
  188 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1951-04-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the shipper's failure to file a timely written claim with the carrier barred recovery for four of the cars, and the shipper failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the carrier's negligence for the remaining two cars.
• Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Fegenbush
  107 Fla. 145· Fla.· 1932-10-24 ·cited 26×
  American Railway Express Company appealed a judgment for damages caused by negligent transportation of perishable goods (beans and lettuce) in interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court held that while the lower court correctly applied the presumption of negligence to the bea
• Minneapolis v. Metal-Matic, Inc.
  323 F.2d 903· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of carrier negligence was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the damage was primarily caused by the shipper's improper loading.
• Caten v. Salt City Movers & Storage Co., Inc.
  149 F.2d 428· 2d Cir.· 1945-05-14 ·cited 24×
  A carrier's attempt to limit liability is void unless the shipper expressly declares or agrees to a released value in writing, and oral agreements or carrier-generated writings without shipper assent are insufficient.
• United States v. Reading Co.
  289 F.2d 7· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-28 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the stipulation between the parties precluded the government from recovering on a negligence theory, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Hector Martinez & Co. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  606 F.2d 106· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-08 ·cited 21×
  Lost rental value for machinery due to transportation delay is a foreseeable general damage under the Carmack Amendment, not a special damage requiring prior notice.
• Mech. Tech. Inc. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1085· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 20×
  A shipper's failure to declare a released value on a bill of lading, when presented with a tariff offering different liability levels, results in the shipment being released at the lowest liability rate specified in the tariff, even without explicit knowledge of the tariff's term
• Contempo Metal Furniture Co. OF Cal. v. E. Tex. Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
  661 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that freight charges and labor costs incurred due to damaged goods are recoverable under the Carmack Amendment, and a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied.
• Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  615 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the cumulative evidence, including the bill of lading, the carrier's admission, the absence of cleaning records, and witness testimony, was sufficient to establish delivery of the bauxite in good condition under the Carmack Amendment.
• Litvak Meat Co. v. Baker
  446 F.2d 329· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Penn Central had sufficient minimum contacts in Colorado for jurisdiction and that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt all common law negligence claims by shippers.
• Hamway v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
  101 Fla. 1483· Fla.· 1931-05-19 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a writ of certiorari, refusing to review a lower court's decision that affirmed a jury verdict for the railway company. The court found that the appeal did not present a question of jurisdiction or fundamental error, but rather a dispute over the
• Wis. Packing Co., Inc. v. Ind. Refrigerator Lines, Inc.
  618 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 18×
  A shipper's informal written notice, combined with the carrier's actual knowledge of the damage and its extent, can satisfy the bill of lading's requirement for a written claim, especially when the carrier has conducted its own investigation.
• Chicago & N. W. R.R. Co. v. Union Packing Co.
  514 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-17 ·cited 18×
  A carrier's liability under the Carmack Amendment for damage to goods terminates upon proper tender to the consignee, and a shipper cannot recover for losses occurring after the consignee's wrongful refusal.
• A.I.G. Uruguay Compania de Seguros, S.A. v. AAA Cooper Transp.
  334 F.3d 997· 11th Cir.· 2003-06-19 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that while the district court erred in its analysis of the sealed container doctrine, the shipper presented sufficient direct evidence of the contents to establish a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment.
• Pathway Bellows, Inc. v. Blanchette
  630 F.2d 900· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 17×
  A claim is considered 'filed' when received by the carrier, not when mailed, and a claim must meet minimum filing requirements to be considered proper.
• Gordon H. Mooney, Ltd. v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
  616 F.2d 619· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 17×
  The court held that both the ocean carrier (Export) and the inland carrier (Maislin) were negligent and jointly liable for the spoilage of the fish, reversing the lower court's decision that Export was solely liable.
• W. D. Lawson & Co. & Wash. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Penn Cent. Co. & Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
  456 F.2d 419· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 17×
  The Carmack Amendment preempts common law claims for interstate carriage, and Tennessee courts may exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations with local offices for causes of action arising outside the state.
• Capitol Converting Equipment v. LEP Transp.
  965 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 16×
• Loveless v. Universal Carloading & Distrib. Co., Inc.
  225 F.2d 637· 10th Cir.· 1955-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to file a written claim within the stipulated time, despite the carrier's actual knowledge of the loss, barred their suit.
• Fine Foliage OF Fla., Inc. v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
  901 F.2d 1034· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a carrier's nonmandatory protective service tariff, not incorporated into the bill of lading and not communicated to the shipper, is ineffective to limit liability under the Carmack Amendment when it conflicts with the shipper's instructions for temperature co
• Falls Indus., Inc. v. Consol. Chem. Indus., Inc.
  258 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a third-party defendant's answer and the parties' conduct in trying the issues can waive the requirement for the plaintiff to amend their complaint to assert a claim against the third-party defendant.
• D.P. Apparel Corp. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  736 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for damage under the Carmack Amendment.
• Blanchette v. Cataldo
  734 F.2d 869· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed most of the district court's findings, reversing only the counterclaim award for interference with business relations due to attorney privilege, and remanded for recalculation of Chapter 93A liability for receivers and attorneys' fees.
• S.C. Johnson & SON, Inc. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  695 F.2d 253· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in inferring bad faith from the destruction of notes and in rejecting the sampling method, but affirmed the judgment because the plaintiff failed to prove the amount of damage at the destination.
• Reed v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc.
  637 F.2d 1302· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt common law remedies for damages, including actual, consequential, and punitive damages, and that attorneys' fees are not recoverable under Section 8 of the Interstate Commerce Act unless the damages are a direct consequen
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Davenport
  205 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-26 ·cited 14×
  A railroad acting as a common carrier cannot contractually require a shipper to indemnify it against liability for injuries to the railroad's own employees.
• Underwriters AT Lloyds OF London v. N. Am. van Lines
  890 F.2d 1112· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 13×
  The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act preempts state common law remedies for negligent damage to goods shipped by common carrier, including claims for full value beyond contractual limitations.
• Captain Everette T. Beers v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc.
  836 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was improper because the federal question was not apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, and a federal preemption defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co.
  795 F.2d 538· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a carrier's processing of damage claims under ICC regulations does not create a prima facie case of liability against its insurer, and that certain defenses raised by the insurer were not affirmative defenses and thus not waived.
• The Pillsbury Co. v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
  687 F.2d 241· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a bill of lading alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for a shipper when goods are shipped under seal, but that Pillsbury presented sufficient additional evidence to prove the flour was delivered in good condition.
• King Ocean Cent. Am., S.A. v. Precision Cutting Servs., Inc.
  717 So. 2d 507· Fla.· 1998-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an ocean carrier issuing a through bill of lading that includes inland transportation remains subject to COGSA's one-year statute of limitations, not the Carmack Amendment's two-year period, when goods are lost during the inland leg by a motor
• Caspe v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc.
  658 F.2d 613· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the limitation of liability clause in the bill of lading was void for failing to comply with tariff and ICC order requirements, allowing recovery of full actual damages, including accounting fees and attorneys' fees due to vexatious conduct.
• F. J. McCARTY Co., Inc. v. S. Pac. Co.
  428 F.2d 690· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment applies to the domestic leg of an international shipment and that the contract price was a proper measure of damages for damaged goods lacking market value at destination.
• Hoagland v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  75 So. 2d 822· Fla.· 1954-10-05 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that state remedial statute Section 95.06, which allows filing a new action within one year after reversal of a judgment, applies to toll contractual limitation periods in interstate carrier cases and is not preempted by federal interstate commerce
• Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Brinke
  450 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-20 ·cited 11×
  The notation 'shipper's load and count' on a bill of lading does not absolve a carrier of liability for damage caused by its own negligence in providing inadequate equipment or a defective lining.
• Howe v. Allied van Lines, Inc.
  622 F.2d 1147· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act allows the government to contract with carriers for reduced rates and limitations of liability, exempting these arrangements from the full liability requirements of Section 20(11).
• Blue Bird Food Prods. Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  492 F.2d 1329· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The introduction of a bill of lading with a "received in apparent good order" notation is insufficient to establish the good condition of the lading when the goods are shipped in a sealed trailer and not open to inspection by the carrier.
• Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Ill. v. S. Ry. Corp.
  483 F.2d 1044· 4th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a shipper is not liable for damage caused by residual substances in a railroad car unless the shipper had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous substance. Similarly, a delivering carrier is not liable for such damage unless an external inspection w
• Watson Bros. Transp. Co., Inc. v. Feinberg Kosher Sausage Co.
  193 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1951-12-19 ·cited 10×
  A tariff provision requiring a shipper to note the need for refrigeration on the bill of lading does not relieve the carrier of its common law duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting perishable goods, especially when the carrier held itself out as providing such service an