Legal Definition and Related Resources of Carmack amendment

The purpose of the Carmack amendment to the Hepburn Act was to do away with the diflnculties shippers had encounteired in seeking to recover damages to property carried over more than one line of railroad, by giving the shipper the right to institute his action against the carrier receiving the property for interstate shipment, for damages occurring anywhere in the course of the transportation, leaving it to such carrier to recover from the carrier on whose line the damage occurred. 271 HI. 541.

Browse

You might be interested in these references tools:

This definition of Carmack Amendment is based on the The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary . This entry needs to be proofread.

Vocabularies (Semantic Web Information)

<

Carmack Amendment in Maritime Law

Note: There is more information on maritime/admiralty law here.

The following is a definition of Carmack Amendment, produced by Tetley, in the context of admiralty law: An amendment to the American Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 made by the Act of June 29, 1906, ch. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, and now found at 49 U.S. Code 11706 and at 49 U.S. Code 14706, which establishes a uniform regime for the liability of interstate common carriers by rail and road, as well as for freight forwarders, who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission), for loss or damage occurring within the United States to cargo carried under their own bills of lading or receipts in interstate or international trade. The Carmack Amendment permits shippers to recover for the “actual” losses to their property (i.e. the loss of fair market value) caused by carriers involved with the shipment (including the “receiving carrier”, the “delivering carrier” and any other carrier over whose line or route the property is transported in the United States). See Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc. 130 F.3d 282 at p. 286 (7 Cir. 1997). The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, by proving that: 1) the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition; 2) the goods arrived at their final destination in a damaged or diminished condition; and 3) the amount of the damages. See Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl 377 U.S. 134 at pp. 137-138 (1964); Camar Corp. v. Preston Trucking Co. 221 F.3d 271 at p. 274 (1 Cir. 2000). Once that prima facie case is made, the carrier is then liable, unless it can show that it is free from negligence and that the loss or damage was caused by an act of God, the public enemy, the act of the shipper himself, public authority, or the inherent vice or nature of the goods. See Missouri Pacific R.R. Co v. Elmore & Stahl 377 U.S. 134 at p. 137 (1964); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co. 211 F.3d 367 at p. 369, note 2 (2 Cir. 2000); Project Hope v. M/V. IBN SINA 2001 AMC 1910 at p. 1916, note 6 (2 Cir. 2001).The carrier’s liability may be limited to the value of the goods declared in writing by the shipper or specified under a written agreement between the shipper and the carrier, in accordance with the rates for transportation of property established by the carrier. The Carmack Amendment does not apply to the land leg in the U.S. of a combined transport by sea and land, unless a separate bill of lading or receipt is issued by the U.S. common carrier for the land leg of the journey. See Jessica Howard v. M/V Sky Light 2002 AMC 798 at pp. 802-804 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).

Carmack Amendment in Admiralty Law

For information on carmack amendment in this context, see the entry on carmack amendment in the maritime law encyclopedia.