Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - General interpretation of common carriers.

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

General interpretation of common carriers. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4019	Page 1 of 1

Author:	JD [ Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:30 am ]
Post subject:	General interpretation of common carriers.
Halsbury's general interpretation of Common Carriers. Carriers generally. Carriers are persons who, either gratuitously or for reward, carry passengers or goods otherwise than for the carriers' own purposes or for purposes connected with the carriers' own trade or business. They may be classified as: (1) common carriers; (2) private carriers; (3) other classes of carrier with special rights and duties. Forwarding agents are persons who conduct the business of arranging the transport of goods for others. Forwarding agents are not ordinarily carriers and do not ordinarily undertake that goods will be carried. Their normal function is to act as agents in concluding contracts for the carriage or handling of customers' goods with carriers or other independent contractors.A stevedore is not a carrier in the ordinary sense of that term. The rights and liabilities of a common carrier are determined by the common law, subject to qualification by statute or by any special contract6. Private carriers ordinarily transact on detailed standard terms and their rights and liabilities are often determined solely by contract. In every case, apart from any statutory exception, it is a question of fact whether or not a person is a common carrier. Since, however, virtually all modern carriage of goods is regulated by contract, carriers who operate purely as common carriers but fail to limit by special contract their common law liabilities are likely to be rare. Moreover, in the case of international carriage the status of a common carrier is something of an anachronism since much of modern English law relating to such carriage (whether by road, rail, sea or air) derives directly or indirectly from international conventions. These conventions form part of English law only so far as they are incorporated into it by domestic legislation. ........................................................................................ 1 As to common carriers see paras 502–505 post; as to private carriers see paras 506–507 post; and as to carriers with special rights and duties see paras 508–540 post. A belief that there is a fourth class of carriers consisting of those who, though not in fact common carriers, by the exercise of the public employment of carrying must be deemed to have impliedly undertaken the liabilities of common carriers, is founded upon what seems to be an erroneous view of the decision in Liver Alkali Co v Johnson (1872) LR 7 Exch 267 (affd (1874) LR 9 Exch 338): see Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 CPD 423 at 433, CA, per Cockburn LJ; Watkins v Cottell [1916] 1 KB 10, DC; Aslan v Imperial Airways Ltd (1933) 149 LT 276 at 278 per MacKinnon J. If such a class of carriers does exist it would appear to be confined to lightermen and not to extend to carriers by land: Watkins v Cottell supra; Belfast Ropework Co Ltd v Bushell [1918] 1 KB 210.2 See para 675 post; and AGENCY vol 2(1) (Reissue) para 13. Forwarding agents frequently act as carriers to a limited extent, eg by providing their own collection and delivery services: see para 675 post. They may also act as principals in relation to the consignor of goods, making independent contracts on their own behalf with individual carriers, but not undertaking any carriage of the goods personally (in which capacity the forwarding agent may have personally undertaken that the goods will be carried while undertaking no part of the carriage in person): see para 579 post; and BAILMENT.3 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446, [1962] 1 All ER 1, HL.4 See eg Great Northern Rly Co v LEP Transport and Depository Ltd [1922] 2 KB 742, CA; and paras 541–560 post. A carrier of goods is a bailee: see para 573 post; and BAILMENT. If the carrier is a private carrier, he owes the normal common law obligations of a bailee; in particular, to take reasonable care of the goods and to refrain from converting them: Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 at 738, [1965] 2 All ER 725 at 738, CA, per Salmon LJ; and see also at 731–732 and 734–735 per Diplock LJ. If the carrier is a common carrier, he is an insurer of the safety of the goods: see para 550 post. As to bailee's insurance see INSURANCE vol 25 (2003 Reissue) para 698 et seq. The common law relationship of bailment can arise independently of contract and generate rights and liabilities distinct from those arising in contract: see eg Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd supra at 731–732 and 734–735 per Diplock LJ; Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd v York Products Pty Ltd [1970] 3 All ER 825 at 831–832, [1970] 1 WLR 1262 at 1269–1270, PC; Compania Portorafti Commerciale SA v Ultramar Panama Inc, The Captain Gregos (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 395 at 405, CA, per Bingham LJ; East West Corpn v DKBS AF 1912 A/S, Utaniko Ltd v P & O Nedlloyd BV [2003] EWCA Civ 83, [2003] QB 1509, [2003] 2 All ER 700; and see Palmer Bailment (2nd Edn, 1991) pp 19–44. As to contract generally see CONTRACT.5 Ie the Carriers Act 1830 and the Carriers Act Amendment Act 1865: see paras 561–571 post.6 See para 570 post.7 See paras 507, 572 post; and for particular examples see Palmer Bailment (2nd Edn, 1991) Ch 15. The legal relationship of bailor and bailee may exist independently of contract: see note 4 supra. As to statutory control of contract terms or notices which purport to exclude or restrict liability for negligence or breach of contract see the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; and CONTRACT vol 9(1) (Reissue) paras 797–835. As to the identity of the parties to a contract of carriage see para 677 et seq post.8 See eg the Transport Act 1962 s 43(6) (as amended), s 52(2) (prospectively amended); and para 504 post.9 See Belfast Ropework Co Ltd v Bushell [1918] 1 KB 210; and para 503 post.10 See paras 541–571 post.11 But cf A Siohn & Co Ltd and Academy Garments (Wigan) Ltd v RH Hagland & Son (Transport) Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 428 at 429 per Cusack J.12 For a discussion of these conventions in relation to carriage by air see para 508 post; and AVIATION vol 2(3) (Reissue) para 894 et seq. In relation to carriage by sea see para 517 post; and SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION vol 43(2) (Reissue) paras 1410 et seq, 1929 et seq. In relation to carriage of goods by road see paras 525, 637–674 post; and ROAD TRAFFIC vol 40(2) (Reissue) para 1267 et seq. In relation to carriage by rail see para 526 post; and RAILWAYS, INLAND WATERWAYS AND PIPELINES vol 39(1) (Reissue) para 9.13 For an example of direct incorporation see the Carriage by Air Act 1961; and for an example of indirect incorporation see the Civil Aviation Act 1982. See further AVIATION vol 2(3) (Reissue) para 301. UPDATE Carriers generally note 5—1865 Act repealed: Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004. .................................................................

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/