EN
Transport

Parking ain’t delivery

logo
Legal news
calendar 2 October 2022
globus Denmark

When is a carriage concluded? A carrier had parked a trailer laden with goods in a parking lot during the Easter holidays. While it was there the goods were stolen. The court found that the theft had occurred whilst the goods were still in the custody of the carrier as the goods had not yet been delivered and the parking had not been approved by the recipient of the gods.

In connection with a road carriage within Denmark the driver parked a trailer in a parking lot near the recipient during the Easter holidays. When the driver returned the following work day he realized that the trailer had been stolen The recipient’s insurance company paid for the stolen goods and claimed a recovery from the carriers. The court therefore had to decide whether the goods had been stolen whilst it was in the care and custody of the carrier or whether it had been delivered when the trailer was parked nearby the recipient.

The recipient did not consider that the carrier had been permitted to leave trailers laden with goods n the parking lot. The parking lot was, according to the recipient, not locked. So the recipient did not think that the goods had been delivered.

The performing carrier disagreed whether the parking lot was locked and alleged that it had been agreed that the goods could be left there over a weekend. Therefore the carriers believed that the goods had been delivered when the theft occurred.

Theft occurred before delivery

The carriage took place within Denmark and was governed by NSAB 2015. Accordingly, the carriers had to prove that they had made no error and that they theft could not have been avoided

The court concluded that the carriers had failed to prove that they had no liability. The court found that the parking lot was neither locked, guarded or fenced in.

The court did not find it proven either that the recipient had permitted parking as it had happened. The driver had returned to the parking lot to drive the trailer the final distance and put the trailer at the disposal of the recipient. It was only then that the recipient signed for delivery and claused the consignment note due to the theft. The goods were therefore still in the care and custody of the carriers when the theft occurred.

The contracting carrier was therefore liable to the recipient and the performing carrier had to indemnify the contracting carrier.

IUNO’s opinion

The case shows that easy problems become difficult then it is unclear what was agreed. The driver had understood that all trailers – not only empty ones – could be left in the parking lot. Without such an agreement, however, existing case law clearly shows that the goods were still at the risk of the carrier.

IUNO recommends that instructions where and how goods may be left are precise and clear.

The judgment has been appealed.

[maritime and Commercial High Court judgment of 22 August 2022 in the cases BS-47476/2021-SHR and BS-47482/2021-SHR]

In connection with a road carriage within Denmark the driver parked a trailer in a parking lot near the recipient during the Easter holidays. When the driver returned the following work day he realized that the trailer had been stolen The recipient’s insurance company paid for the stolen goods and claimed a recovery from the carriers. The court therefore had to decide whether the goods had been stolen whilst it was in the care and custody of the carrier or whether it had been delivered when the trailer was parked nearby the recipient.

The recipient did not consider that the carrier had been permitted to leave trailers laden with goods n the parking lot. The parking lot was, according to the recipient, not locked. So the recipient did not think that the goods had been delivered.

The performing carrier disagreed whether the parking lot was locked and alleged that it had been agreed that the goods could be left there over a weekend. Therefore the carriers believed that the goods had been delivered when the theft occurred.

Theft occurred before delivery

The carriage took place within Denmark and was governed by NSAB 2015. Accordingly, the carriers had to prove that they had made no error and that they theft could not have been avoided

The court concluded that the carriers had failed to prove that they had no liability. The court found that the parking lot was neither locked, guarded or fenced in.

The court did not find it proven either that the recipient had permitted parking as it had happened. The driver had returned to the parking lot to drive the trailer the final distance and put the trailer at the disposal of the recipient. It was only then that the recipient signed for delivery and claused the consignment note due to the theft. The goods were therefore still in the care and custody of the carriers when the theft occurred.

The contracting carrier was therefore liable to the recipient and the performing carrier had to indemnify the contracting carrier.

IUNO’s opinion

The case shows that easy problems become difficult then it is unclear what was agreed. The driver had understood that all trailers – not only empty ones – could be left in the parking lot. Without such an agreement, however, existing case law clearly shows that the goods were still at the risk of the carrier.

IUNO recommends that instructions where and how goods may be left are precise and clear.

The judgment has been appealed.

[maritime and Commercial High Court judgment of 22 August 2022 in the cases BS-47476/2021-SHR and BS-47482/2021-SHR]

Receive our newsletter

Mads

Poulsen

Partner

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Lars

Rosenberg Overby

Partner

Similar

logo
Transport

6 November 2022

Customs is a duty of the carrier

logo
Transport

6 November 2022

CMI adjusts General Average

logo
Transport

2 October 2022

Italian torpedo sinks Danish case

logo
Transport

4 September 2022

Carrier not liable for French identity theft

logo
Transport

4 September 2022

Ventilator in headwind

logo
Transport

21 June 2022

Swedish Tobacco Duty Goes up in Smoke

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Ida

Thune Ikkala

Legal advisor

Joachim

Sieverts Nielsen

Associate

Lars

Rosenberg Overby

Partner

Mads

Poulsen

Partner