Carmack Amendment

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

• Commodity Credit Corp. v. Norton
  167 F.2d 161· 3d Cir.· 1948-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury charge erroneously instructed the jury that the carrier's insurer liability was contingent upon proof of negligence, when common carrier liability is strict unless an excepted peril applies.
• Aultman v. Atl. Coast Line R. R. Co.
  71 Fla. 276· Fla.· 1916-03-01 ·cited 10×
  This case involves a lawsuit by S. B. Aultman against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for damages due to unreasonable delay and improper handling of perishable goods. The court reversed the lower court's decision to sustain the railroad's demurrer, finding the declaratio
• Fornel v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  65 Fla. 102· Fla.· 1913-02-04 ·cited 10×
  Fornel sued the Florida East Coast Railway Company for damages caused by unreasonable delay in transporting six carloads of tomatoes from Lemon City to Chicago. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the declaration and struck portions seeking interest and attorney's fees under
• Carmana Designs Ltd. v. N. Am. van Lines Inc.
  943 F.2d 316· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 9×
  A carrier failed to effectively limit its liability for destroyed goods because it did not obtain the shipper's deliberate and well-informed choice, particularly when the bill of lading contained conflicting weight information and the limitation was not clearly presented.
• Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Pony Express Courier Corp.
  911 F.2d 1580· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 9×
  A carrier cannot limit its liability by relying on an obscure provision in a bill of lading that overrides the shipper's explicit declaration of value, unless the shipper was specifically aware of that provision.
• In re the Arb. of Certain Differences Between Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc.
  537 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 9×
  A compulsory venue provision in an interstate carrier's bill of lading requiring arbitration in New York City is illegal and invalid under the Interstate Commerce Act.
• Collins Moving & Storage Corp. OF S.C. v. Ira Michael Kirkell and Sandra Kirkell
  867 So. 2d 1179· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-03 ·cited 8×
  Collins Moving & Storage appeals a judgment awarding the Kirkells damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees for damaged and missing household goods shipped under the Carmack Amendment. The court affirmed the interest award under Florida law but reversed the at
• Ting-Hwa Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd.
  986 F.2d 700· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The Carmack Amendment preempts state common law claims for lost or damaged goods if the shipment is subject to ICC jurisdiction, but the statute of limitations in § 11706 does not apply to such claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of defendants for failure to serve.
• United Van Lines, Inc. v. Shooster
  860 F. Supp. 826· S.D. Fla.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts state law claims for fraud and equitable estoppel related to shipping estimates, and that assault and battery claims are subject to the Bill of Lading's notice provisions. However, a claim for property damage under the Carmack Am
• Hughes Aircraft Co. v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc.
  970 F.2d 609· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 8×
  A carrier can limit its liability if it meets ICC requirements, and state law negligence claims are preempted by the Carmack Amendment for interstate carriers.
• Rohner Gehrig Co., Inc. v. Tri-State Motor Transit
  950 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues the majority erred by not grounding its opinion in statutory language, which allows carriers to limit liability under specific conditions.
• Fine Foliage of Fla., Inc. v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
  698 F. Supp. 1566· M.D. Fla.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 8×
  A common carrier cannot limit its liability for negligence through its tariff when the Carmack Amendment applies, and the carrier failed to prove it was free from negligence or that the loss was due to an excepted cause.
• AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  721 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The Carmack Amendment provides an exclusive remedy for foreseeable damages resulting from a carrier's misdelivery of cargo, even if no bill of lading was issued for the misdelivered item itself, as long as a contract of carriage existed for other deliveries.
• Aluminum Prods. Distribs., Inc. v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc.
  549 F.2d 1381· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an arbitration clause in a bill of lading for interstate commerce is invalid if it attempts to limit the carrier's liability, as prohibited by the Carmack Amendment.
• Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Branch Motor Express Co.
  432 F.2d 564· 1st Cir.· 1970-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff met its burden of proving damages under the Carmack Amendment, even though the final damage assessment occurred weeks after delivery.
• Acme Fast Freight, Inc. v. Chicago
  166 F.2d 778· 2d Cir.· 1948-03-01 ·cited 8×
  A freight forwarder, deemed an initial carrier under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1013, is subrogated to the shipper's rights against a connecting carrier, even if a new bill of lading is issued.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. NEW Penn Motor Express, Inc.
  979 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1992-11-04 ·cited 7×
  A carrier's liability limitation in a released value provision is not vitiated by intentional deviation from the bill of lading terms, unless the conduct amounts to intentional destruction or theft of the property.
• Arnold J. Rodin, Inc. v. The Atchison
  477 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions were proper, correctly framing the case within the context of carrier liability and the Carmack Amendment, and that the admission of certain testimony was within the scope of cross-examination.
• Harvest Int'l, Inc. v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., Ltd.
  644 So. 2d 112· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 6×
  Harvest International, a consignee, sued Tropical Shipping for loss of goods shipped via a through bill of lading with a separate domestic bill of lading. The court held that the Carmack Amendment applied and imposed strict liability on the carrier, requiring reversal of the tria
• Norton v. JIM Phillips Horse Transp., Inc.
  901 F.2d 821· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the carrier effectively limited its liability to $200 per horse because the bill of lading substantially complied with the tariff, the shippers' agent had authority to agree to the limitation, and the shippers were afforded a reasonable opportunity to choose a
• PNH Corp. v. Hullquist Corp.
  843 F.2d 586· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when the coffee was stolen, and that the district court improperly dismissed cross-claims against Maersk.
• Cont'l Grain Co. v. Frank Seitzinger Storage, Inc.
  837 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 49 C.F.R. § 1037.1 applies only to the voluntary settlement of claims, not to civil litigation for loss in transit. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on this regulation.
• Nat'l Transp., Inc. v. INN Foods, Inc.
  827 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a clean bill of lading is insufficient to establish delivery in good condition for goods not visible or open to inspection, and that the exclusion of testimony lacking personal knowledge was not an abuse of discretion.
• Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Great W. Airlines, Inc.
  767 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 6×
  A carrier's agent is liable for the full value of damaged goods under federal common law unless a statute or contract expressly extends liability limitations to the agent.
• Wis. Packing Co., Inc. v. Ind. Refrigerator Lines, Inc.
  604 F.2d 1022· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's letter and invoices did not constitute sufficient written notice of claim under the Interstate Commerce Act, and the defendant carrier did not have actual knowledge of all the conditions of the damage as required to excuse the lack of formal no
• Household Goods Carriers' Bureau & Movers' & Warehousemen's Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  584 F.2d 437· D.C. Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's order amending rules governing carrier liability for loss and damages to goods was not arbitrary or irrational and denied the petitions for review.
• Polaroid Corp. v. Hermann Forwarding Co.
  541 F.2d 1007· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the carrier provided adequate notice of disallowance of lost cargo claims.
• Gold Star Meat Co. v. Union Pac. Railboad Co.
  438 F.2d 1270· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 6×
  A common carrier has a common law duty to inform a shipper of any known cause likely to delay transportation, and breach of this duty can lead to liability for resulting losses.
• J & H Flyer Inc. v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  316 F.2d 203· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a carrier is not liable as an insurer for the loss of merchandise not disclosed as baggage, and that the plaintiff's salesman was contributorily negligent by leaving the valuable bag unattended.
• Reider v. Thompson
  176 F.2d 13· 5th Cir.· 1949-07-20 ·cited 6×
• Hansen v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc.
  486 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2006-11-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to file a proper written claim with the carrier, and also lacked standing due to prior assignment of her claim, thus summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
• Am. Eye Way, Inc. v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc.
  875 F. Supp. 820· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Carmack Amendment preempts state law claims for negligence and misrepresentation arising from the formation of an interstate shipping contract.
• Salzstein v. Bekins van Lines Inc.
  993 F.2d 1187· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 5×
  A claimant must provide a specified or determinable amount of money in their claim to comply with ICC regulations, and a carrier is not estopped or deemed to have waived this requirement if they later notify the claimant that the claim is incomplete.
• Intech, Inc. v. Consol. Freightways, Inc.
  836 F.2d 672· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 5×
  A shipper's failure to file a written claim for damages within nine months of delivery or a reasonable time for delivery, as required by the bill of lading, bars recovery, and this requirement is not excused by the carrier's mere knowledge of damage or conduct that does not preve
• Crump v. Thompson
  171 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1948-12-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' own negligence in creating a hazardous fire condition and storing cotton bales near an inflammable refuse pile was the sole proximate cause of the fire, relieving the defendant carrier of liability.
• Rohner Gehrig Co., Inc. v. Tri-State Motor Transit
  923 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 4×
  A carrier's bill of lading need only substantially comply with tariff provisions to limit liability, and shipper sophistication is a key factor in determining if notice was provided.
• Nat'l Small Shipments Traffic Conf., Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  887 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 4×
  Tariffs containing "inadvertence clauses," which automatically insure shipments at the lowest released value rate if the shipper fails to declare a value, are not per se illegal under the Interstate Commerce Act.
• Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. S. Rock, Inc.
  644 F.2d 1138· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the term 'error' in the demurrage tariff's Rule 8-E encompasses negligence, and evidence of the railroad's negligence should have been admitted. However, the counterclaim for consequential damages was properly dismissed due to lack of notice.
• Mass v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
  577 F.2d 665· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 4×
  A shipper who intentionally fails to disclose the high value of a shipment to obtain a lower freight rate is barred from recovery for a loss the carrier did not anticipate.
• Shippers Serv. Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  528 F.2d 56· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 4×
  A railroad's own schedules constitute prima facie evidence of its obligation to transport goods with reasonable dispatch, shifting the burden to the railroad to justify any delays.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Honorable George C. Templar
  463 F.2d 967· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the blanket sanctions imposed by the trial court against Southern Railway were an abuse of discretion and constituted an error.
• Super Serv. Motor Freight Co., Inc. v. United States
  350 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1965-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that under the Carmack Amendment, once a shipper establishes a prima facie case of damage, the burden remains on the carrier to prove both its freedom from negligence and that the damage resulted from an excepted cause.
• Larry's Sandwiches, Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Ry. Co.
  318 F.2d 690· 9th Cir.· 1963-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that for perishable goods, the carrier's duty is to prove compliance with protective service rules, not to prove the damage resulted from inherent vice. The shipper must prove specific negligence.
• Kalman v. Morris-North Am., Inc.
  531 So. 2d 394· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-09-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the appellees, as warehousemen, entered into a separate contract for permanent storage distinct from the bill of lading, thus their liability was not preempted by the Carmack Amendment.
• La. S. Ry. Co. v. Anderson
  191 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1951-10-03 ·cited 3×
  A switching carrier can be held liable for loss occurring on its own line under common law, independent of statutory liability under the Carmack Amendment.
• Precision Cutting Servs., Inc. v. King Ocean Cent. Am., S.A.
  696 So. 2d 824· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-03-19 ·cited 2×
  Precision Cutting Services appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against King Ocean for stolen goods shipped via ocean and motor carrier. The court reversed, holding that the Carmack Amendment, not the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, governs the domestic motor carrier se
• Drucker v. O'Brien's Moving & Storage Inc.
  963 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Druckers under 49 U.S.C. § 11711(d) and granted fees for the appeal.
• Fuente Cigar, Ltd. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  925 F.2d 370· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it should grant leave to appeal when the district court reverses a magistrate's judgment based on a legal conclusion, especially when the magistrate and district court disagree on the facts and the district court's reasoning lacks clear legal authority.
• Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Midland Moving & Storage Co. & United Van Lines, Inc.
  920 F.2d 1301· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 2×
  A carrier's written agreement for 'full value protection' may override an Act of God exclusion in a bill of lading if the agreement is separate and clearly provides for broader coverage.
• Roadway Express, Inc. v. Fuente Cigar, Ltd.
  749 F. Supp. 248· S.D. Fla.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipper failed to establish a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment because it did not prove the cigars were damaged at the time of delivery to the carrier, thus the trial court erred in denying the carrier's motion for involuntary dismissal.