When it comes to road carriage of goods, there are a number of parties involved throughout the entire process. You have the shipper, the carrier, the consignee, if applicable, and in most cases their agents, just to name a few. When a problem comes about, namely in case where the goods have sustained damages, it can be hard to prove who is liable. In that respect, it is important that each involved party is aware of its commitments in relation to the execution of the transport. The best way to avoid any issues with the allocation of responsibilities should things go awry is to make sure everything goes as clearly as possible from the very beginning, starting with the shipper liabilities.
What matters first and foremost is to make clear whether the shipment is FCL (Full Container Load) or LCL (Less Container Load). FCL refers to a single container booked by a shipper to transport their cargo (exclusively). This service is commonly used by shippers who have enough cargo to fill the whole container making it cost effective to book an FCL shipment. On the other hand, LCL refers to cargoes owned by different shippers, grouped in a single container by the carrier, allowing transportation of smaller volumes of cargo without paying for a full container; this is more cost effective for smaller shipments which cannot utilize a full container.
The responsibilities of the shipper are not the same in both cases. In case of FCL consignment, the shipper has exclusive use of entire container(s), which implies that the container is loaded and unloaded under the risk and account of the shipper or consignee. As a result, the containers are stuffed and sealed by the shipper, at the shipper’s facility while is the shipper who is responsible for the costs thereof. In other words, in a FCL consignment, the carrier simply acknowledges receipt of the container, undertakes to transport it without losing or damaging it, but does not commit itself as regards the contents or the packaging of the goods within the container. On the contrary, in the event of LCL freight, the loading and stuffing of the container and thus the packaging of the goods within the container are secured by the carrier. The shipper ought to carry them to the transport terminal with the delivery being completed when the goods have been handed over to the road carrier or to another person acting on his behalf.
If it is found on the basis of a survey report, held by an expert appointed from the insurer of the goods, that the damages observed at the stage of the delivery of goods to the consignee are attributed to the defective performance of the stuffing, then the allocation of liabilities will be contingent on the nature of the carriage and especially on who was charged with the stuffing operation. Consequently, in case of FCL assignment, the shipper will not be compensated for the damages incurred, since these have been caused due to his failure to secure the avoidance of any dangerous movements of the goods within the container during their carriage. On the other hand, when the stuffing has been assigned to the carrier, as it is the case with the LCL freights, any damages suffered from the shipper shall be covered by the carrier, since any deficiencies related to the stuffing procedure will be directly connected to his failure to comply with his primary obligation to properly and carefully handle the goods so as to deliver them to the consignee in the condition in which they were handed over to him by the shipper or his agent.
What matters first and foremost is to make clear whether the shipment is FCL (Full Container Load) or LCL (Less Container Load). FCL refers to a single container booked by a shipper to transport their cargo (exclusively). This service is commonly used by shippers who have enough cargo to fill the whole container making it cost effective to book an FCL shipment. On the other hand, LCL refers to cargoes owned by different shippers, grouped in a single container by the carrier, allowing transportation of smaller volumes of cargo without paying for a full container; this is more cost effective for smaller shipments which cannot utilize a full container.
The responsibilities of the shipper are not the same in both cases. In case of FCL consignment, the shipper has exclusive use of entire container(s), which implies that the container is loaded and unloaded under the risk and account of the shipper or consignee. As a result, the containers are stuffed and sealed by the shipper, at the shipper’s facility while is the shipper who is responsible for the costs thereof. In other words, in a FCL consignment, the carrier simply acknowledges receipt of the container, undertakes to transport it without losing or damaging it, but does not commit itself as regards the contents or the packaging of the goods within the container. On the contrary, in the event of LCL freight, the loading and stuffing of the container and thus the packaging of the goods within the container are secured by the carrier. The shipper ought to carry them to the transport terminal with the delivery being completed when the goods have been handed over to the road carrier or to another person acting on his behalf.
If it is found on the basis of a survey report, held by an expert appointed from the insurer of the goods, that the damages observed at the stage of the delivery of goods to the consignee are attributed to the defective performance of the stuffing, then the allocation of liabilities will be contingent on the nature of the carriage and especially on who was charged with the stuffing operation. Consequently, in case of FCL assignment, the shipper will not be compensated for the damages incurred, since these have been caused due to his failure to secure the avoidance of any dangerous movements of the goods within the container during their carriage. On the other hand, when the stuffing has been assigned to the carrier, as it is the case with the LCL freights, any damages suffered from the shipper shall be covered by the carrier, since any deficiencies related to the stuffing procedure will be directly connected to his failure to comply with his primary obligation to properly and carefully handle the goods so as to deliver them to the consignee in the condition in which they were handed over to him by the shipper or his agent.
