Who Is Responsible for the Costs of Transloading a Vehicle?
- Introduction
Vehicle overloading is certainly not a desirable situation in the transport industry. Leaving aside the issue of administrative penalties, the discovery that a vehicle exceeds its permissible gross weight usually also means that part of the cargo must be unloaded and transferred elsewhere—perhaps to a warehouse, perhaps to another vehicle. One thing is certain: the journey cannot continue in its current state.
As a result, the transport operation will not proceed according to the original plan. Who should pay for all of this?
- Who Is Responsible for Transloading?
The starting point is Article 72 of the Polish Transport Law Act, under which the sender is liable for damage resulting, among other things, from providing inaccurate information or declarations in the consignment note, as well as from the improper performance of loading operations.
Any remaining doubts concerning the costs of necessary transloading are expressly addressed in paragraph 3 of this provision. If the information regarding the weight of the consignment stated in the consignment note does not correspond to the actual weight, the sender bears the costs associated with transloading the consignment.
At first glance, this might appear to settle the matter. For example, the sender declares that the cargo weighs 20 tonnes. After weighing, it turns out that the actual weight is 24 tonnes. The vehicle cannot continue its journey, and part of the consignment must be transferred to another vehicle combination. The associated costs are therefore borne by the sender.
In practice, however, answering the question “Who pays?” is the least interesting part of the problem. The far more important question is what, exactly, the sender is required to pay for.
- The Costs of Transloading
The Polish Transport Law Act does not specify precisely what is meant by “the costs associated with transloading the consignment”, at least not explicitly. Indeed, refraining from defining this concept in detail was arguably appropriate, as it allows the term to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.
Accordingly, these costs should include all expenses having an adequate causal connection with the discovery that the weight of the consignment stated in the consignment note was lower than its actual weight.
The physical transloading operation itself may require hiring a forklift, crane or other equipment, not to mention the labour involved. A suitable location is also needed for the cargo to be transferred. In some cases, a second vehicle must be provided.
Throughout this process, the original vehicle remains immobilised, as does its driver. Additional mileage may be necessary, transport arrangements may need to be changed, and costs associated with vehicle downtime may arise.
The legislator has not established an exhaustive list of such costs. On the one hand, this avoids unnecessary legal over-specification. On the other hand, the absence of a clear-cut statutory basis means that almost any individual expense may be challenged.
Ultimately, if the matter escalates into court proceedings, the assessment will be left to the judge hearing the case.
Article 72(2) of the Polish Transport Law Act may provide useful guidance. It stipulates that where the information supplied by the sender is inaccurate or insufficient, the sender is liable for “all costs” that the carrier may incur as a result.
This provision may therefore serve as an interpretative guideline when determining the scope of the obligation to cover such expenses.
The distinction between straightforward reimbursement for an additional logistical operation and a conventional claim for damages consequently becomes much less clear-cut.
- Vehicle Breakdown
Let us once again assume that the sender provided an incorrect weight for the consignment, but the problem was not detected during a roadside inspection.
After travelling several hundred kilometres, the vehicle combination enters a mountainous route. A failure occurs in the suspension, braking system or another vehicle component. Only then does it become apparent that the actual weight of the cargo differs significantly from the information provided to the carrier in the consignment note.
Clearly, the transport operation will no longer proceed according to plan. The vehicle may need to be towed away, or a mechanic may have to be called to repair the fault on-site.
If the breakdown is more serious, a replacement vehicle combination may need to be provided, naturally raising the issue of transloading discussed above.
The driver’s situation must also be considered. Should accommodation in a hotel be arranged, or should the driver return to the depot? The carrier may already have scheduled another transport operation that, as a result of the breakdown, will inevitably be impossible to carry out.
Is the sender also liable for these costs?
Once again, the Polish Transport Law Act provides the carrier with an interesting starting point. Under Article 73, liability for damage to the carrier’s property caused by loading operations rests, as appropriate, with the sender or the recipient.
At the same time, Article 72 covers damage resulting both from providing inaccurate information and from the improper performance of loading operations themselves.
Consequently, the sender’s liability need not end once the costs of transloading have been covered.
This does not mean, however, that every subsequent vehicle breakdown can automatically be attributed to the sender.
Overloading alone is not sufficient. A carrier seeking reimbursement for vehicle repair costs must establish a causal link between the damage and the irregularity for which the sender is responsible.
For certain types of breakdown, this connection may appear relatively obvious. In other cases, it will be necessary to establish the actual technical cause of the damage.
The mere fact that the vehicle was overloaded when the breakdown occurred does not necessarily mean that overloading caused it.
The Polish Transport Law Act imposes obligations on the carrier as well as on the sender. As a general rule, the carrier is required to use a vehicle suitable for the transport in question. The carrier may also verify whether the consignment corresponds to the declarations made by the sender in the consignment note.
At the same time, the party carrying out the loading operations should perform them in such a way as to avoid exceeding the vehicle’s permissible gross weight or axle-load limits.
Consequently, in a specific dispute, the relevant considerations may include not only the actual weight of the consignment, but also who loaded it, what information was provided to the carrier, whether the carrier had an opportunity to verify that information, and what happened after the vehicle left the loading site.
However, that is an entirely different question from the one with which we began.
Łukasz Strzelczyk
Legal Counsel at Trans Lawyers Law Firm
