Practical guide: port law, cargo handling and liability in the logistics chain
A single instance of damage in port almost always involves several potential defendants (sea carrier, stevedore, freight forwarder, forwarding agent, inland carrier), each subject to a distinct regime, cap and time limit. Port litigation is won or lost on evidence and on compliance with formidably short deadlines, not on the principle of liability itself. Here is how to identify the right defendant and secure the claim before it is too late.
1. The sea carrier: a statutory cap, but grounds for forfeiture
Under Article L. 5422-12 of the French Transport Code, the sea carrier is liable for loss or damage occurring between taking charge of the goods and delivery, subject to the exhaustively listed grounds of exoneration, including the duty of due diligence laid down in Article L. 5422-6. Its liability is in principle capped at an amount per package or unit, determined in accordance with Article L. 5422-13, unless the shipper declared the value before loading. Without a declaration, the cap applies. The benefit of limitation is not, however, guaranteed in all circumstances: Article L. 5422-14 deprives the carrier of it where it has committed inexcusable fault, a notion construed strictly by the courts, as illustrated by the decisions concerning the vessels La Licorne (Cass. com., 10 November 2010), Ethnos (Cass. com., 14 May 2002) and Txarrena (Cass., 2 November 2005). Any clause which would exclude or reduce this liability, or deprive the shipper of the benefit of insurance taken out on the goods, is void under Article L. 5422-15, a public policy provision. The action is time-barred one year after delivery or the date on which the goods should have been delivered (Article L. 5422-18).
2. The stevedore: a separate special regime
Between the ship’s hold and the warehouse, the goods pass into the custody of the stevedoring contractor, whose liability is governed by its own statutory framework: Article L. 5422-19 covers loading and discharge, while Article L. 5422-21 establishes a presumption of liability for additional services, the claimant retaining the ability to prove the contrary. The applicable cap, fixed by reference to Article L. 5421-9 (Article L. 5422-23), can in no case exceed the cap the sea carrier would enjoy for the same operation; the case law in the San Pedro matter (appeal no. 09-15.244) made clear that no contractual arrangement, including an action against the de facto subcontractor, allows this statutory cap to be circumvented. A more recent decision (appeal no. 22-17.843) further held that this cap, confined to the contractual relationship between the stevedore and its direct counterparty, applies to the whole of the loss, which can severely limit compensation even where the damage is substantial. The limitation period is the same one year as for the sea carrier (Article L. 5422-25).
3. The freight forwarder: guarantor, but with a subrogated recourse
Article L. 132-5 of the French Commercial Code makes the freight forwarder (commissionnaire de transport) the guarantor of damage, loss and delay affecting the goods whose carriage it organises, including where the damage is in reality attributable to one of its substitutes. This guarantor is not without recourse: Article L. 132-8 gives it a direct action against the carrier or stevedore at fault, independently of its contractual relationship with its client (Cass. com., 13 June 2006, appeal no. 05-16.921), but only provided it has first compensated its own client or undertaken to do so; failing which it loses any recourse against its substitute once the limitation period expires without the position having been regularised. The deadline does not forgive oversight.
4. The formality of reservations: three days can be enough to lose everything
For inland carriage, Article L. 133-3 of the Commercial Code provides that if, within three days, public holidays excluded, following receipt, the consignee has not served a reasoned protest on the carrier, no action is admissible against it for damage or partial loss; a mere handwritten note on the delivery note is insufficient unless followed, within the same period, by a formal notification. An application for court-ordered expert examination lodged within that period does, however, count as a valid reservation. This formality, formidable for the unwary business, must be mastered from the moment the damage is discovered: once the protest period has passed, the action may be definitively extinguished, regardless of the reality or the seriousness of the loss suffered. The time limit kills the action, whatever the merits.
5. The calendar of time limits: immediate reactivity is required
The brevity of the time limits applicable across the whole port chain requires protective steps to be taken as soon as the damage is discovered: immediate formalisation of reservations, preservation of evidence before it is altered or erased, formal notice to all parties who may be pursued, including in the alternative, so as to interrupt the limitation period against each of them.
| Party | Applicable time limit | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Inland carrier (protest) | 3 working days from receipt | Article L. 133-3 of the Commercial Code |
| Sea carrier | 1 year from delivery | Article L. 5422-18 of the Transport Code |
| Stevedoring contractor | 1 year from delivery | Article L. 5422-25 of the Transport Code |
| International road carriage (CMR) | 1 year, save wilful misconduct or equivalent default | CMR Convention |
6. The subrogated insurer: bound by the same rules as its insured
Cargo insurance, which covers goods carried by any mode, rests on the principle of statutory subrogation set out in Article L. 172-29 of the French Insurance Code: the insurer which has indemnified its insured is subrogated to all of the insured’s rights and actions against those liable for the damage. This subrogated recourse is, however, subject to the same formalities and the same limitation periods as that of the insured itself; any failing prior to indemnification, absence of reservations, late protest or silence beyond the prescribed period, is fully enforceable against the subrogated insurer, which cannot claim a more favourable regime than its insured. The insurer inherits the weaknesses of its insured. Symmetrically, the party pursued usually holds professional liability insurance whose limits of cover are frequently aligned, without being legally identical, with the statutory caps applicable to its activity; the notification of the claim to that insurer, within contractual deadlines which follow no uniform legal rule and may be significantly shorter than the limitation periods themselves, is a condition of calling on that cover.
The firm’s method when a casualty is under way
The firm has prepared a practical guide setting out, for each party in the port chain, the six steps to take without delay: identify the legal regime applicable to the disputed operation, check that reservations were validly made in the required form and time, assess the consequences of any failing, calculate the limitation cap enforceable against each potential defendant, determine for each the applicable limitation period and its expiry date, and assess whether to join, in the alternative, every party who may be pursued. It is available free of charge in exchange for a professional email address:
Where the damage occurred during carriage rather than in the port, the claim lies against the carrier under the bill of lading, within a one-year time bar.
Download the guide “From Quay to Warehouse: Port Liability”
For assistance with maritime litigation or a maritime transaction, see our maritime law page and, on this specific topic, our page on carrier liability under a bill of lading.
On the same guide, from the side of the vessel and the port operators: Port liability: the six points that decide who pays for damage occurring within the port.