Circuit split · maritime law
Whether the shipper or the carrier bears the risk of loss when a cargo consolidator (freight forwarder) fails to forward the shipper's freight payment to the carrier
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Hawkspere Shipping Co. v. Intamex, S.A.330 F3D 225
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · May 27, 2003
“Thus, the question: should Inta-mex and Amaleo have to pay twice, or should Hawkspere instead receive no payment at all? There exists a split among the circuits on the question of which party, the shipper or the carrier, bears the risk that the cargo consolidator might, as here, fail to forward the freight payment to the carrier.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Joined by · 11th Cir.Nat'l Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. Omni Lines106 F.3d 1544
“Omni Lines, 106 F.3d 1544 , 1546-47 (11th Cir.1997) (adopting rule of “semi-strict liability for shippers,” such that “unless the carrier intends to release the shipper from its duty to pay under the bill of lading, the shipper remains liable to *237 the carrier, irrespective of the shipper’s payment to a [cargo consolidator]”); Strachan Shipping Co., 701 F.2d at 489-90 (holding that shipper is relieved of liability only if it can demonstrate that carrier actually released it); Sectr-Land Serv.” — Hawkspere Shipping Co. v. Intamex, S.A., acknowledging the split
- Joined byStrachan Shipping Co.701 F.2d 489
“Omni Lines, 106 F.3d 1544 , 1546-47 (11th Cir.1997) (adopting rule of “semi-strict liability for shippers,” such that “unless the carrier intends to release the shipper from its duty to pay under the bill of lading, the shipper remains liable to *237 the carrier, irrespective of the shipper’s payment to a [cargo consolidator]”); Strachan Shipping Co., 701 F.2d at 489-90 (holding that shipper is relieved of liability only if it can demonstrate that carrier actually released it); Sectr-Land Serv.” — Hawkspere Shipping Co. v. Intamex, S.A., acknowledging the split
- Joined by · S.D.N.Y.Sectr-Land Serv. v. Amstar Corp.690 F.Supp. 246
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- "assumption of risk" view ·
- "semi-strict liability" for shippers ·
- "equitable estoppel" view
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.