49 U.S.C. § 11707

Liability when property is delivered in violation of routing instructions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) When a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part diverts or delivers property to another rail carrier in violation of routing instructions in the bill of lading, both of those rail carriers are jointly and severally liable to the rail carrier that was deprived of its right to participate in hauling that property for the total amount of the rate it would have received if it participated in hauling the property.(2) A rail carrier is not liable under paragraph (1) of this subsection when it diverts or delivers property in compliance with an order or regulation of the Board.(3) A rail carrier to whom property is transported is not liable under this subsection if it shows that it had no notice of the routing instructions before transporting the property. The burden of proving lack of notice is on that rail carrier.(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the plaintiff in a judgment against the defendant rail carrier under subsection (a) of this section. The court shall tax and collect that fee as a part of the costs of the action.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 849.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11710 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Prior sections 11707 to 11712 were omitted in the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Section 11707, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1453; Pub. L. 96–258, § 1(14), June 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 427; Pub. L. 96–296, § 26(b), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 818; Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 211(c), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1911; Pub. L. 99–521, § 12(d), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2998; Pub. L. 100–690, title IX, § 9114, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4535, related to liability of common carriers under receipts and bills of lading. See sections 11706, 14706, and 15906 of this title.

Section 11708, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1454; Pub. L. 99–521, § 12(e)(1), (2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2998, related to private enforcement of motor carrier and household goods freight forwarder licensing requirements. See section 14707 of this title.

Section 11709, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1454, related to liability for issuance of securities by certain carriers.

Section 11710, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1455, related to liability when property is delivered in violation of routing instructions. See section 11707 of this title.

Section 11711, added Pub. L. 96–454, § 7(a)(1), Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2016; amended Pub. L. 97–261, § 6(d)(2), Sept. 20, 1982, 96 Stat. 1107, related to dispute settlement program for household goods carriers. See section 14708 of this title.

Section 11712, added Pub. L. 103–180, § 4(a), Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2049, related to tariff reconciliation rules for motor common carriers of property. See section 14709 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 363 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,067 Tex Morris Cindy Sagrera Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc. Coleman Am. Moving Servs., Inc., 144 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,067 Tex Morris Cindy Sagrera Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc. Coleman Am. Moving Servs., Inc., 144 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “The liability imposed under this paragraph is for actual loss or injury to the property caused by (1) the receiving carrier [or] (2) the delivering carrier____ 49 U.S.C. § 11707 (a)(1) (1995). 2 The Morrises contend that the purpose of the Amendment was simply to' establish…”

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991). · cites it 2× “" See also 49 U. S. C. § 11707 (e) ("A carrier or freight forwarder 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…”

Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “The complaint included claims under the Car-mack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 (1992), 1 as well as state law claims of negligence, misrepresentation, use of unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Mass.”

Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,057 Mark L. Gordon, as Adm'r of the Est. of Ruth Slavin, & Rachelle Gordon, & v. United Van Lines, Inc., &, 130 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “They prevailed before a jury in their action for liability under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 (1994), now codified at 49 U.”

Edward & Nancy Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., & 291 Sisser Bros., Inc., 829 F.2d 1407 (7th Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “IV In summary, we hold that the district court’s action was proper in holding that the proper interpretation of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (recodified 49 U.S.C. § 11707 , § 10730, and § 10103) preempts all state and common law remedies inconsistent with…”

Capitol Converting Equip., Inc. v. Lep Transp., Inc., 965 F.2d 391 (7th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “Because the machinery never reached Chicago, Capitol sued LEP under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 , and for breach of contract under Illinois law.”

Van Wyk, Inc. v. Fruitrade Int'l, Inc., 635 A.2d 14 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “Whether the en banc panel erred when it ruled that Fruitrade’s complaint was not time barred under 49 U.S.C. § 11707 (e). (An appeal from a decision of an en banc panel is permitted pursuant to Md.”

Consol. Rail Corp. v. Primary Indus. Corp., 868 F. Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). · cites it 7× “§ 1005 , 2 and 49 U.S.C. § 11707 . 3 In July of 1991, Conrail announced that it would close Pier 124 in Philadelphia.”

Fine Foliage of Florida, Inc. v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 698 F. Supp. 1566 (M.D. Fla. 1988). · cites it 8× “As shipper, plaintiff contends that it is protected and entitled to recover its loss from defendant under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 , formerly 49 U.S.C. App.”

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 695 F.2d 253 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 20 (11) (recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 11707 ), against a rail carrier for damage incurred when the carrier delivered a shipment of Johnson products some of which appeared to be frozen.”

Boarder to Boarder Trucking, Inc. v. Mondi, Inc., 831 S.W.2d 495 (Tex. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “49 U.S.C.A. § 11707 (West Pamphlet 1991).”

Swift Textiles, Inc. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 799 F.2d 697 (11th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “When Is an Intrastate Shipment Not An Intrastate Shipment? The first issue before us on appeal is whether the shipment of the textile spin *699 ning machinery from Savannah, Georgia to LaGrange, Georgia is covered by the Car-mack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11707 , formerly 49 U.S.C.…”

Show all 363 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 11707(a)(1) — 1 case

Amerisure Mut. Ins. v. Carey Transp., Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Mich. 2008).

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.