A container line takes charge of a machine in Lyon bound for Montreal, by truck to Fos and then by sea. When the container is opened, the machine is damaged. A road impact, handling at the terminal, rolling in the Atlantic? Nobody knows.
No applicable multimodal convention
Multimodal transport under a single document is not governed by any international convention in force. The 1980 United Nations Convention never entered into force; nor have the 2008 Rotterdam Rules, which cover “maritime plus” carriage. Each mode keeps its own regime: the Hague-Visby Rules and the French Transport Code for the sea leg, the CMR for international road carriage and domestic law for national road carriage.
Localised and non-localised damage
Where the place of the damage is established, practice and most combined transport documents apply the regime of the mode concerned: this is known as the “network” system. Localisation changes everything: limits of liability, time limits, excepted perils.
Where the damage cannot be localised, the combined transport document generally provides for a default regime, often that of carriage by sea, which is more favourable to the carrier. Its clauses must be read and their validity checked against the applicable law.
The role of the freight forwarder
Under French law, the party organising carriage from end to end is often a freight forwarder acting as principal (commissionnaire de transport). It guarantees against damage and loss, save as otherwise agreed or in case of force majeure (Article L. 132-5 of the Commercial Code), and is answerable for the acts of the intermediaries it selected (Article L. 132-6). For the client, the advantage is clear: it does not need to localise the damage in order to sue the commissionnaire. The commissionnaire, on the other hand, will have to localise it in order to seek recourse against the right subcontractor, within one month (Article L. 133-6).
Evidence
Localising the damage requires a chain of findings: the condition of the container at stuffing, equipment interchange reports at the terminal, photographs of the seals, survey reports. Data from a shock recorder installed in the container may be decisive.
What the firm checks first
- The transport document and its liability clauses.
- The organiser’s capacity: multimodal carrier or commissionnaire.
- The evidence for localising the damage.
- The notices of loss given at each stage.
- The time limits applicable to each mode.
For the firm’s services, see Liability of the sea carrier.
Further reading
- Freight forwarder, forwarding agent, NVOCC: whom to sue after cargo damage?
- Sealed container arriving short: the “said to contain” clause and the consignee
- Container damaged or lost: who is liable and within what time limit?
This analysis is part of the firm’s work in maritime law.
Frequently asked questions
Which convention applies to multimodal transport?
No multimodal convention is in force; each mode keeps its own regime, and the contract governs the rest.
What if nobody knows where the damage occurred?
The combined transport document often provides for a default regime; if the organiser is a commissionnaire, it is liable without the place of damage having to be established (Commercial Code, Article L. 132-5).
Are the Rotterdam Rules in force?
No, they have not obtained the required number of ratifications.