U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 117— ENFORCEMENT: INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES

49 U.S.C. § 11706

Liability of rail carriers under receipts and bills of lading

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall issue a receipt or bill of lading for property it receives for transportation under this part. That rail carrier and any other carrier that delivers the property and is providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part are liable to the person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading. The liability imposed under this subsection is for the actual loss or injury to the property caused by—(1) the receiving rail carrier;(2) the delivering rail carrier; or(3) another rail carrier over whose line or route the property is transported in the United States or from a place in the United States to a place in an adjacent foreign country when transported under a through bill of lading.Failure to issue a receipt or bill of lading does not affect the liability of a rail carrier. A delivering rail carrier is deemed to be the rail carrier performing the line-haul transportation nearest the destination but does not include a rail carrier providing only a switching service at the destination.(b) The rail carrier issuing the receipt or bill of lading under subsection (a) of this section or delivering the property for which the receipt or bill of lading was issued is entitled to recover from the rail carrier over whose line or route the loss or injury occurred the amount required to be paid to the owners of the property, as evidenced by a receipt, judgment, or transcript, and the amount of its expenses reasonably incurred in defending a civil action brought by that person.(c)(1) A rail carrier may not limit or be exempt from liability imposed under subsection (a) of this section except as provided in this subsection. A limitation of liability or of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement in a receipt, bill of lading, contract, or rule in violation of this section is void.(2) A rail carrier of passengers may limit its liability under its passenger rate for loss or injury of baggage carried on trains carrying passengers.(3) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may establish rates for transportation of property under which—(A) the liability of the rail carrier for such property is limited to a value established by written declaration of the shipper or by a written agreement between the shipper and the carrier; or(B) specified amounts are deducted, pursuant to a written agreement between the shipper and the carrier, from any claim against the carrier with respect to the transportation of such property.(d)(1) A civil action under this section may be brought in a district court of the United States or in a State court.(2)(A) A civil action under this section may only be brought—(i) against the originating rail carrier, in the judicial district in which the point of origin is located;(ii) against the delivering rail carrier, in the judicial district in which the principal place of business of the person bringing the action is located if the delivering carrier operates a railroad or a route through such judicial district, or in the judicial district in which the point of destination is located; and(iii) against the carrier alleged to have caused the loss or damage, in the judicial district in which such loss or damage is alleged to have occurred.(B) In this section, “judicial district” means (i) in the case of a United States district court, a judicial district of the United States, and (ii) in the case of a State court, the applicable geographic area over which such court exercises jurisdiction.(e) A rail carrier may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than 9 months for filing a claim against it under this section and a period of less than 2 years for bringing a civil action against it under this section. The period for bringing a civil action is computed from the date the carrier gives a person written notice that the carrier has disallowed any part of the claim specified in the notice. For the purposes of this subsection—(1) an offer of compromise shall not constitute a disallowance of any part of the claim unless the carrier, in writing, informs the claimant that such part of the claim is disallowed and provides reasons for such disallowance; and(2) communications received from a carrier’s insurer shall not constitute a disallowance of any part of the claim unless the insurer, in writing, informs the claimant that such part of the claim is disallowed, provides reasons for such disallowance, and informs the claimant that the insurer is acting on behalf of the carrier.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 847.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11707 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

A prior section 11706, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1452; Pub. L. 97–258, § 3(n), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1066; Pub. L. 99–521, § 12(c), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2998; Pub. L. 103–180, § 3, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2049; Pub. L. 103–429, § 6(18), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4379, related to limitation on actions by and against common carriers, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See sections 11705, 14705, and 15905 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 211 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010). · cites it 11× “49 U. S. C. §11706 (a). “[T]his part” refers to the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB’s) jurisdiction over domestic rail trans portation.”
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 456 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 11× “584 (1906) (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 11706 ), does not govern the Railroad’s liability in this case.”
CNA Ins. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine Co., 747 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 16× “It is noteworthy that both Norfolk Southern and BNSF maintain detailed records, via computer, of the handling of the trains and railcars, including movement on the line and at the terminal, coupling and decoupling, and any 5 The Carmack, 49 U.S.C. § 11706 , liability scheme,…”
Joe R. Whatley, Jr. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 904 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 24× “Joe Whatley, Trustee of the wrongful death claimants' trust (WD Trust), appeals the district court's order finding that his claim under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11706 , against Canadian Pacific Railway was untimely.”
ABB INC. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 721 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 23× “2 This appeal involves rail carriers, which are subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 11706 . Today, motor carriers are also subject to a separate provision of the Carmack Amendment, codified at 49 U.”
Chartis Seguros Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC, 3 F. Supp. 3d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 10× “, District Judge: A train derailment has set off a chain reaction of claims and cross-claims that question the applicability of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11706 , the default scheme for rail carriers’ liability for goods entrusted to their transport.”
Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990). · cites it 4× “When Primary refused to pay the amounts demanded, the estate brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 49 U. S. C. § 11706 (a) (1982 ed.) [5] for the difference between the filed rates and the negotiated rates.”
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Yang Ming Marine Transp. Corp., 578 F. Supp. 2d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 11× “2 On December 14, 2007, Sompo filed the instant action against Yang Ming, seeking damages for each of the three shipments for (1) violations under 49 U.S.C. § 11706 , a provision of Car-mack, (2) common law negligence, (8) common law breach of bailment, and (4) breach of…”
Royal & Sun All. Ins., PLC v. Ocean World Lines, Inc., 612 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “at 2442-43 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 11706 (a)) (alterations in original).”
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). · cites it 2× “Under 49 U. S. C. § 11706 (c)(2), a shipper “must begin a civil action to recover damages under [§ 11705(b)(3)] within two years after the claim accrues,” which occurs “on delivery or tender of delivery by the carrier,” § 11706(g).”
Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. v. Evergreen Marine Corp., 621 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “We are again asked which federal statutory scheme governs the extent of the parties’ liability: the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11706 , which imposes something akin to strict liability on shippers; or the Carriage of Goods and Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.”
Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 11707 and then recodified again in 1996 at 49 U.S.C. §§ 11706 , 14706. The current version of Carmack applicable to motor carriers, including the defendants-appellants in the present case, is 49 U.”
Show all 211 citing cases →
49 U.S.C. § 11706(b): 1 case
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 851 F.2d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
49 U.S.C. § 11706(d)(2)(A): 2 cases
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00795 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2020).
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00079 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2020).
49 U.S.C. § 11706(g): 2 cases
A.B.F. Freight Sys. Inc. v. Austrian Imp. Serv., Inc., 798 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990).
Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 485 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.