The Damaged Pallet and the Missing CMR Reservation
A Belgian forwarder, Delvaux Logistics, arranges carriage of 24 pallets of industrial sealants from Antwerp to Milan for an Italian consignee. The CMR consignment note is issued; in box 13 the sender types '12 pallets, shrink-wrapped, cartons visible'. The remaining 12 pallets are loaded without any remark. The trailer is sealed at Antwerp. On arrival in Milan the consignee notes on the CMR that four pallets are crushed and the seal is intact. Delvaux's carrier subcontracted the road leg to a Polish haulier. The consignee claims EUR 18,400. The carrier argues it received the goods already damaged and that the consignee's remark was made after unloading. Delvaux must assess its exposure and what the reservation in box 13 actually achieves.
1. What is the evidential effect of the box 13 reservation, and what does it mean for the four crushed pallets?
Read the worked answer
Under the CMR Convention, the consignment note is prima facie evidence of the condition of the goods at the time of taking over - but only for the goods to which a reservation or remark actually relates. The sender's remark covers 12 pallets described as shrink-wrapped with visible cartons. It says nothing about the other 12.
So the reservation splits the load. For the 12 remarked pallets, the carrier can argue the packaging was already suspect and shift part of the burden back to the sender. For the 12 unremarked pallets, the presumption runs the other way: they are presumed to have been received in good condition, and the carrier must prove otherwise.
Which pallets were crushed matters. If the four crushed pallets are among the unremarked 12, the carrier's 'already damaged' defence is weak and it must look to the seal, the loading supervision and any independent evidence. If they are among the remarked 12, the sender's own description supports the carrier. Delvaux should establish the pallet numbering before conceding anything.
2. The consignee noted the damage after unloading, and the seal was intact. How should Delvaux evaluate liability and the amount?
Read the worked answer
Two separate issues: liability and quantum.
On liability, an intact seal is strong but not conclusive evidence that damage did not occur during carriage - crushing can happen inside a sealed trailer through poor stowage, braking forces or inadequate lashing. Conversely, the carrier can invoke the CMR defences, including inherent vice or defective packaging, and the sender's box 13 remark supports that for the remarked pallets. The fact that the consignee noted the damage after unloading weakens its position: the CMR requires reservations to be made at the time of delivery, or within seven days where the damage is not apparent, and a post-unloading remark is easier for the carrier to challenge.
On quantum, CMR limits compensation by reference to the weight of the goods lost or damaged, not the invoice value. Delvaux must calculate the limit on the gross weight of the four crushed pallets and compare it with EUR 18,400 - the claim is likely to be capped well below the invoice figure. Delvaux should also check whether a declaration of value was made in the consignment note, which would lift the limit, and then look to the Polish subcontractor under its own contractual and CMR position.