Multimodal Transport Case Law

Godafoss (Hoge Raad, Netherlands, 2012)

• Facts:

  • SIF instructed Eimskip to transport a container of salted fish from Reykjavik, Iceland, to Naples, Italy

  • The transport was multimodal: by sea from Reykjavik to Rotterdam, and by road from Rotterdam to Naples

  • The contract was under a Non-Negotiable Sea Waybill for Combined Transport, which included a jurisdiction and choice of law clause favoring Icelandic courts and law

  • The specific mode for the Rotterdam-Naples leg was not stated in the document, but it was performed by road, during which the cargo was stolen

• Issue:

  • Does the CMR Convention apply to multimodal carriage (other than "piggyback" transport) generally, or at least specifically when the loss occurs during the road leg

• Rule:

  • Article 1(1) CMR applies to contracts for the carriage of goods by road for reward

  • However, Article 2(1) explicitly brings "piggyback" transport (road vehicles on ships/trains) under CMR, which implies that other types of multimodal transport are excluded.

• Application:

  • The court emphasized international uniformity, aligning with the German BGH's 2008 stance. It argued that a road leg within a multimodal contract is not the same as an independent road carriage contract. Applying CMR based on where damage occurred (a "network system") was deemed unworkable and a threat to legal certainty, as it would make jurisdiction and choice of law dependent on debating exactly where a loss took place

• Conclusion:

  • The CMR does not apply to multimodal carriage that is not piggyback transport. The Icelandic jurisdiction clause was held valid
    

OGH Vienna - ‘Too many coils on board’ (Austria, 2016)

• Facts:

  • A consignor and carrier agreed to transport 32 pallets from Austria to Pakistan (truck to Hamburg; vessel to Karachi). However, 14 extra pallets destined for India were mistakenly loaded onto the truck in Austria. Upon arrival in Karachi, the discrepancy caused customs delays and additional costs. The Pakistan-bound goods were cleared late, and the India-bound goods were lost.

• Issue:

  • Which liability regime applies when the "root cause" of damage (faulty loading) occurs in a CMR state (Austria) but the damage is realized in a non-contracting state (Pakistan)

• Rule:

  • Under the "network system," the liability for a carrier in multimodal transport is determined by the regime applicable to the specific leg where the damage occurred. This is based on a hypothetical unimodal contract for that segment. The "root cause" principle states that if damage can be attributed to a specific segment, the legal regime of that segment applies

• Application:

  • Although the damage was realized in Pakistan (a non-CMR state), the "root cause" was the faulty loading/mixing of goods in Austria (a CMR state). Therefore, CMR applied to that segment. However, the court found that CMR only regulates specific damages (loss, damage, and delay) and does not provide rules for "additional carriage outside a contract" or associated customs costs.

• Conclusion:

  • The CMR applies to the segment where the root cause occurred, but because the specific damages claimed were not covered by the Convention, the court fell back on Austrian national law
    

Photocopiers Multimodal (BGH, Germany, 2008)

• Facts:

  • A Japanese cosigner ordered a Japanese carrier to transport 24 containers form Tokyo to Germany. The journey involved a sea leg (Tokyo to Rotterdam,) and a road leg (Rotterdam to Monchengladbach, Germany). While still in the port of Rotterdam, a trailer carrying 50 photocopiers overturned, causing severe damage

  • the carriers terms specified Japanese law and Tokyo jurisdiction

• Issue:

  • Is the CMR autonomously applicable to the road leg of an international multimodal contract when the national law of the forum is not applicable?

• Rule:

  • Article 1(1) CMR defines its scope as contracts "for the carriage of goods by road". Article 2 is treated as a systematic exception to the principle that CMR does not cover multimodal contracts

• Application:

  • The BGH rejected the English Quantum approach, arguing that "carriage by road" implies exclusivity. Historical context, including the unratified 1980 Multimodal Convention, suggested that CMR was intended strictly for unimodal road carriage. Since German law (which uses a network system via HGB) did not apply to this specific contract, CMR could only apply if it were directly applicable to multimodal road legs - which the court denied

• Conclusion:

  • The CMR does not apply to multimodal contracts outside the scope of Article 2. The choice of Japanese law and jurisdiction was upheld
    

Quantum Corp Inc v Plane Trucking Ltd (Court of Appeal, UK, 2002)

• Facts:

  • Quantum arranged to send hard disks from Singapore to Dublin. Air France issued a master air waybill recording a two-stage journey: air from Singapore to Paris, and a trucking service from Paris to Dublin. The cargo was hijacked in Wales with the complicity of the trucking employees

• Issue:

  • Does the CMR apply to the international road leg of a contract that involves both air and road segments

• Rule:

  • Article 1(1) CMR applies to every "contract for the carriage of goods by road". The court interpreted this to include contracts that "provide for" or "permit" international road carriage that actually takes place

• Application:

  • The air waybill explicitly provided for the Paris-Dublin leg to be performed by road. Even if Air France had the option to substitute modes, the fact that the contract provided for a road leg which was then performed brought it under CMR. The "place of taking over" and "delivery" were interpreted as the start and end of the road leg (Paris and Dublin) rather than the entire journey

• Conclusion:

  • The CMR applies to the international road leg of the multimodal contract. This allowed the claimants to invoke Article 29 to bypass liability limits due to wilful misconduct

TNT v Mitsui Marine (Cour de Cassation, Belgium, 2004)

• Facts:

  • This case centered on "fleximodal" contracts where the carrier has the discretion to choose the mode of transport. Examples discussed in the sources include Taxipost (a short-distance delivery) and Alante (a 372km journey) where neutral consignment notes were used and no specific mode was contractually mandated

• Issue:

  • Does the CMR apply to "fleximodal" contracts where the mode of transport is not explicitly defined and left to the carrier's discretion?

• Rule:

  • Belgium adheres to a "contractual scope" interpretation. CMR applies only when carriage by road is contractually agreed upon (either explicitly or implicitly) as the purpose of the contract

• Application:

  • For CMR to apply, the parties must have envisaged road transport. In the Taxipost and Alante cases following this precedent, Belgian courts applied a strict test: CMR was excluded if other modes (like rail) were not "prima facie" excluded by the contract's terms. The mode actually used for performance is considered irrelevant to the contract's initial "purpose"

• Conclusion:

  • he CMR does not apply to fleximodal contracts unless it can be proven that the parties intended for the goods to be carried by road. This allows parties to effectively "opt out" of CMR by simply not specifying a mode of transport.