International Law Office
  • Home
  • Newsletters
  • News
  • Directory
  • Deals
  • Conferences
  • About
  • Associations
  • Bookstore
  • Awards
  • Subscribe

Shipping & Transport - Germany

Further Developments in Contributory Negligence

July 16 2008

Facts
Decisions
Comment


Facts

In two recent cases(1) the Federal Court has developed its jurisdiction on the reduction of carrier liability for the contributory negligence of the consignor.

The Federal Court had to rule on a number of appeals lodged by parcel services against judgments granting unlimited liability based on gross negligence under Article 29 of the Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Road and corresponding Section 435 of the German Commercial Code. The lower courts had approved the unlimited liability of the carrier and denied the contributory negligence of the consignor.

Decisions

First the Federal Court confirmed that the carrier acted with gross negligence as it had not provided for a continuous interface control in respect of handling the cargo. However, it rejected the lower courts' opinion that contributory negligence under Section 254(1) of the Civil Code should be denied. Section 254(1) of the Civil Code specifies that liability and the amount of compensation depend on the circumstances - that is, the extent to which the damage was caused by the carrier and how much the consignor contributed to the occurrence of damage. The lower courts ruled that the carrier did not prove that it would have treated the consignments with special care had it known of their value. The court held that a prudent consignor would have realized that the special treatment of a consignment of high value is guaranteed only if the consignment is handed over to the parcel service separately from standard consignments.

Furthermore, the court based the contributory negligence of the consignors on Section 254(2) of the Civil Code, stating that contributory negligence can arise from the consignor's failure to draw the carrier’s attention to the danger of unusually extensive damage, where the carrier neither was nor ought to have been aware of the danger. The court confirmed that a danger of unusually extensive damage exists if the damage exceeds 10 times the limitation of liability stipulated in the general terms and conditions of the carrier.

However, the court did not assess the details of the claims, but rather referred the cases back to the lower courts.

Comment

Although the decisions related to parcel services, generally claimants must consider that the ability of the German courts to impose unlimited liability on the carrier may be restricted by the contributory negligence regime.

The court laid down the principle that contributory negligence under Section 254(2) of the Civil Code may be approved if the value of the consignment is more than 10 times higher than the limitation of liability. However, the judge is still free to acknowledge contributory negligence and to evaluate the extent of the reduction of the specific claim. Therefore, it is still worth attempting to claim full compensation for the damage, particularly as causation of the contributory negligence may be denied if the carrier would not have treated the consignment with special care had it been instructed of the value.

Furthermore, claimants are supported by the fact that for contributory negligence to arise under Section 254(1) of the Civil Code, the carrier must generally prove that the consignor was or should have been aware of the carrier’s special service for high-value consignments and that the carrier would have provided for special treatment of the consignment in comparison to standard consignments. Both these points may be difficult for the carrier to prove if the consignor was not instructed regarding a special service for high-value consignments.

For further information on this topic please contact Steffen Maelicke at Dabelstein & Passehl by telephone (+49 40 31 77 970) or by fax (+49 40 31 77 97 77) or by email (s.maelicke@da-pa.com).

Endnotes

(1) September 20 2007 (I ZR 43/05, I ZR 44/05) and January 30 2008 (I ZR 146/05, I ZR 165/04).

Comment or question for author

ILO provides online commentaries as specialist Legal Newsletters. Written in collaboration with over 500 of the world's leading experts and covering more than 100 jurisdictions, it delivers individually requested information via email to an influential global audience of law firm partners and international corporate counsel. Please click here to register for the service.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription. Register at www.iloinfo.com.

Comment for author

Advanced search

 

 

Send to colleague

Print

Author

Steffen Maelicke

Steffen Maelicke
 

Updates for this firm

Updates for this jurisdiction

Updates for this workarea

Official Online Media Partner to the International Bar Association
An International Online Partner to the Association of Corporate Counsel
European Online Media Partner to the European Company Lawyers Association The International Bar Association Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) European Company Lawyers Association The International Bar Association Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) European Company Lawyers Association Regional Online Media Partner to the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association

© Copyright 1997-2010 Globe Business Publishing Ltd
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy