Law Office of Larry R. Davidson - Transportation Attorney
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
  • Thoughts
  • Rollin-On
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Profile
Logo.Larry Davidson
Rollin'-On

Transportation Law Blog

Reefer Loads and Carrier Liability

1/24/2017

 
          This case comes to us by way of a New Jersey federal district court.  Since federal law usually applies to matters involving interstate transportation, it's all the same, or supposedly so, whether we're talking west coast, east coast, or somewhere in between.  It should be noted, however, that there are 11 different federal circuits (Oregon is in the 9th Circuit), and that sometimes there is a difference of opinion between the circuits on various issues.  Still, even where there is a difference of opinion amongst the circuits, the courts nevertheless still apply their version of federal law; they do not use state law to guide their disposition of the case.
 
            The case involved a shipment of cheese, purchased by Trader Joe's, transported from origin in New Jersey to destination in California.  The vendor hired a carrier which in turn hired another carrier to perform the transportation service.  The Master Vendor Agreement between the vendor and the buyer, Trader Joe's, provided Trader Joe's with the right to reject the shipment at destination if the temperature readings exceeded 40 degrees. 
 
            There were two separate temperature reading devices, a TempTale provided by the seller and a Thermo King WinTrac 4 provided by the carrier.  Sure enough, both devices showed that the temps exceeded 40 degrees during most of the time of transport.  Trader Joe's nevertheless only rejected 11 out of the 17 pallets.           
 
            The rejected pallets were placed in a warehouse and were not inspected for seven weeks.  The carrier's inspector then determined that the cheese was not damaged, that it was in good condition, that there was no evidence of moisture due to high temps, no condensation on the packaging, no loosening of the vacuum bag which would indicate bacterial growth, and no evidence of mold.  So the inspector gave its carrier-client as a good of a report as it possibly could.
 
            The broker filed a lawsuit against the carrier for negligence, breach of contract and indemnification, and filed a claim against Trader Joe's, a claim which it later tried to withdraw but could not do so as the carrier objected to the withdrawal.  Meanwhile, the carrier filed a cross claim against Trader Joe's for wrongful rejection. 
 
            The court first held that Trader Joe's rejection of the cheese was entirely proper.  It helped that the vendor agreed with Trader Joe's.  The Master Vendor Agreement provided Trader Joe's with the right to reject in the event of high temps, and in view of the readings from both devices, including the carrier's, it was an easy call on that basis alone.
 
            However, the court did not stop there and discussed the Trader Joe's rejection in more detail in its discussion regarding the carrier's assertion that the broker did not prove its case against the carrier.  As many folks in the transportation biz know, interstate transportation of cargo is generally governed by the Carmack Amendment.  To prove a case, Carmack only requires a person to prove (1) proof of delivery in good condition at origin, (2) delivery in damaged condition at destination, and (3) damages.  The carrier has some limited defenses, not applicable here, which will be discussed at a different time. 

            The court held that retailers like Trader Joe's have a duty to assure the safety of the food products that it sells to consumers.  In conjunction with this duty, the court compared the temperature reading to the placement of a seal on the shipment (reefer, container, etc.), stating that the food must be safe and that given potential liability, it was not unreasonable for a company to adopt a policy of rejecting shipments were the seal has been broken.  The court further stated that like a seal, a temperature threshold is a reasonable safeguard to assure food integrity, prolong shelf life, minimize deterioration, and to protect the company and its customers (some of the foregoing is quoted directly or paraphrased from the court's decision).  The court basically stated that the temp readings overrode whatever findings the carrier's inspector had made.  In the end, the court thus held the carrier liable, with damages to be proven at a later time.
 
            That's all for now.  Until next time, keep the cargo rollin'

Comments are closed.

    Larry R.

    ​Davidson

    Transportation Law Blog

    This is a new blog. For prior articles regarding various transportation law issues, please click here for articles appearing in past issues of Rollin' On.

    Archives

    June 2018
    September 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017

    Categories

    All
    Attorney
    Breach Of Contract
    Cargo
    Cargo Loss
    Carmack Amendment
    Carrier
    Claims Jurisdiction
    Damage Claims
    Damages
    Delivery
    Exempt Transportation
    Federal Court
    Federal Law
    Food Temperature
    Freight
    Indemnification
    Insurance
    Interstate Commerce
    Interstate Transportation
    Law
    Lawsuit
    Legal
    Loss
    Master Vendor Agreement
    Motor Carrier
    Negligence
    New Jersey Federal District Court
    Rejected Products
    Safety Of Food Products
    Shipper
    State Court
    Trader Joes
    Transportation
    Trucking
    Wrongful Rejection

    RSS Feed

    About the Author

    Larry Davidson is a transportation attorney located in Portland, OR.

Home
Practice Areas
Contact
Sitemap
Law Office of Larry R. Davidson - Transportation Attorney at Law
Telephone: 503-229-0199 - Facsimile: 503-229-0644 - larry@rollin-on.com
121 SW Morrison Street; Ste. 1020 - Portland, OR 97204
Copyright 2000-2017 - All Rights Reserved
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
  • Thoughts
  • Rollin-On
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Profile