U.S. Code » Title 49 » SUBTITLE X— MISCELLANEOUS › CHAPTER 801— BILLS OF LADING

49 U.S.C. § 80111

Liability for delivery of goods

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)General Rules.—A common carrier is liable for damages to a person having title to, or right to possession of, goods when—(1) the carrier delivers the goods to a person not entitled to their possession unless the delivery is authorized under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title;(2) the carrier makes a delivery under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title after being requested by or for a person having title to, or right to possession of, the goods not to make the delivery; or(3) at the time of delivery under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title, the carrier has information it is delivering the goods to a person not entitled to their possession.(b)Effectiveness of Request or Information.—A request or information is effective under subsection (a)(2) or (3) of this section only if—(1) an officer or agent of the carrier, whose actual or apparent authority includes acting on the request or information, has been given the request or information; and(2) the officer or agent has had time, exercising reasonable diligence, to stop delivery of the goods.(c)Failure To Take and Cancel Bills.—Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, if a common carrier delivers goods for which a negotiable bill of lading has been issued without taking and canceling the bill, the carrier is liable for damages for failure to deliver the goods to a person purchasing the bill for value in good faith whether the purchase was before or after delivery and even when delivery was made to the person entitled to the goods. The carrier also is liable under this paragraph if part of the goods are delivered without taking and canceling the bill or plainly noting on the bill that a partial delivery was made and generally describing the goods or the remaining goods kept by the carrier.(d)Exceptions to Liability.—A common carrier is not liable for failure to deliver goods to the consignee or owner of the goods or a holder of the bill if—(1) a delivery described in subsection (c) of this section was compelled by legal process;(2) the goods have been sold lawfully to satisfy the carrier’s lien;(3) the goods have not been claimed; or(4) the goods are perishable or hazardous.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1350.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

80111(a)

49 App.:90 (less last par.).

Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 415, §§ 10–12, 26, 39 Stat. 540, 542.

80111(b)

49 App.:90 (last par.).

80111(c)

49 App.:91 (words after 2d comma).

 

49 App.:92 (words after 2d comma).

80111(d)

49 App.:91 (words before 2d comma).

 

49 App.:92 (words before 2d comma).

 

49 App.:106.

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the word “title” is substituted for “right of property” for consistency in this chapter.

In subsection (c), the words “negotiable bill of lading” are substituted for “order bill . . . the negotiation of which would transfer the right to the possession of the goods” in 49 App.:91 for consistency in this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Expeditors Int'l of Washington, Inc. v. Crowley Am. Transp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 663 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Expeditors Int'l of Washington, Inc. v. Crowley Am. Transp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 663 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “This is a diversity action in which plaintiff asserts claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, conversion, breach of bailment and violation of the…”
PolyGram Grp. Distrib., Inc. v. Transus, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1454 (N.D. Ga. 1997). “See 49 U.S.C.A. § 80111 (a) (1997). 13 . See Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 to Carver’s Dep.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Neb. 2013). “1997) (“Liability under both [the Carmack Amendment and the Federal Bills of Lading Act, 49 U.S.C. § 80111 (a),] ceases upon delivery of the goods to the proper person.”
Ace Bag & Burlap Co. v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D.N.J. 1999). “49 U.S.C. § 80111 (a)(1). Thus, “delivery to a person not entitled to the goods without production of the bill of lading is prima facie evidence of a conversion of the goods and a breach of contract.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00795 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2022). · cites it 3× “§ 80110 ); (3) Common carrier liability for violations of the Federal Bill of Lading Act (Mis- delivery/conversion under 49 U.S.C. § 80111 ); (4) Negligence, gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct; and, (5) Conversion (Id.”
Certain Underwriters Subscribing to a Policy of Ins. v. Guyana Nat'l Indus. Co., No. 1:23-cv-20172 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024). “49 U.S.C. § 80111 (a). See also Polygram Group Distribution, Inc.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00795 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2021). “§ 80110 ); (III) Common carrier liability for violations of the federal Bill of Lading Act (mis-delivery/conversion under 49 U.S.C. § 80111 ); (IV) Negligence, gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct; and, (V) Conversion.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00795 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2021). “§ 80110 (non-delivery) and 49 U.S.C. § 80111 (misdelivery). A bill of lading records that a carrier has received goods from the party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract for carriage.”
Hotung v. Cargo of a Crate Containing Nine Boxes of Documents Shipped Aboard the M/V Hanjin Nagoya, 452 F. Supp. 2d 564 (D.N.J. 2006). “49 U.S.C. § 80111 . Because plaintiff had no legal claim to the possession of the cargo at issue, the Court grants the intervenors’ motion to dismiss the first count for immediate possession of the cargo and the fourth count for conversion of the cargo.”
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.