Weintraub v. ETA Transportation
|
DMC/SandT/03/37 DMC Category Rating: Confirmed The case note was contributed by Brian P. Devine, an attorney with the law firm Healy & Baillie, LLP, who are the International Contributors to the website for the USA. Facts/Background Judgment The court determined that ETA was a freight forwarder and not a common carrier with respect to the shipment and therefore was not liable for the loss of the goods. In making its determination that ETA had not held itself out as a common carrier, the court considered the following factors: 1. Claimant did not have a written transportation agreement with ETA and did not directly communicate with ETA regarding the shipment; 2. While there was no invoice for this shipment, in the past ETA would generally submit invoices to Schaefer’s agent for payment, and not to the shipper; 3. ETA did not physically transport plaintiff’s goods on this or any prior occasion; and 4. ETA did not issue a bill of lading for the shipment. Instead, TEA issued a bill of lading in this case to Claimant’s vendor, Confecciones, upon picking up the cargo in Mexico. Claimant further alleged that ETA breached its duty as a bailee. The court found, however, that ETA was not a bailee, since TEA was in possession of the goods at the time they were stolen and TEA was not ETA’s subcarrier. Conclusion |
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website. |