Regulation and interpretation of carrier’s unlimited liability

Kuljetusoikeus on eriytynyt kuljetusmuotojen mukaan ja eri kuljetusmuodoilla on oma erityislainsäädäntönsä. Eri kuljetusmuotojen kansallisten lakien perustana ovat usein kansainväliset konventiot. Yhdistetyt kuljetukset ovat kuitenkin yleisiä kuljetusalalla ja niihin liittyvät vastuukysymykset voivat olla monimutkaisia. Yhdistetyt kuljetukset koostuvat ainakin kahdesta eri kuljetusmuodosta. Yhdistettyjä kuljetuksia ei ole säännelty kansainvälisellä konventiolla eikä Suomessa kansallisella lailla. Tutkimuskysymyksinä ovat: Miten rahdinkuljettajan rajoittamatonta vastuuta tavarankuljetuksissa säännellään ja tulkitaan tie-, meri- ja yhdistetyissä kuljetuksissa? Mitkä ovat yhdistettyjen kuljetusten sääntelyn vaihtoehtoja? Millä tavoin tulkinta voi toimia yhtenäisyyden edistäjänä erityisesti rahdinkuljettajan kvalifioidussa tuottamuksessa tie-, meri- ja yhdistetyissä kuljetuksissa? Tie- ja merikuljetukset on valittu tarkastelun kohteiksi, koska Suomessa ja kansainvälisesti ne ovat tavaran pääkuljetusmuotoja sekä näiden muodostama yhdistelmä on yleinen yhdistetyissä kuljetuksissa. Rahdinkuljettajan rajoittamatonta vastuuta tarkastellaan rahdinkuljettajan vastuiden kautta. Käsiteltävinä ovat tavaravastuun alkaminen ja päättyminen, kuljetus- ja tilitysvastuu, vastuu kuljetuksen suorittamiseen liittyvistä henkilöistä, viivästysvastuu, tietovastuu ja luovutusvastuu. Rajoittamaton vastuu ja erityisesti kvalifioitu tuottamus on valittu erityiseen tarkasteluun rahdinkuljettajan vastuusta, koska sen seuraamukset ovat ankarat rahdinkuljettajalle. Rahdinkuljettaja ei voi rajoittaa vastuutaan summamääräisiin rajoihin ja hän menettää yleensä oikeuden vakuutuskorvaukseen. Kyseessä on lainopillinen tutkimus, vaikka de lege ferenda -tutkimuksen metodeja käytetään myös analysoitaessa erilaisia malleja säännellä yhdistettyjä kuljetuksia sekä lainsäädäntömuutossuosituksissa. Kuljetusmuotojen sääntelyn yhtenäisen tulkinnan katsotaan olevan yksinkertainen ratkaisu, koska ne muotoilevat olemassa olevaa sääntelyä yhtenäisyyttä silmällä pitäen. De sententia ferenda -tutkimuksen metodeja käytetään myös, koska nämä kuljetusmuotojen sääntelyn yhtenäiset tulkinnat on tarkoitettu tuomioistuimille sovellettaviksi yhtenäisen oikeuskäytännön aikaansaamiseksi. Ehkä tämänkaltaisen yhtenäisyyden jälkeen voitaisiin aikaansaada myös kansainvälisiä yhdistettyjä kuljetuksia koskevaa lainsäädäntöä. Yhtenäisyyttä on vaikea löytää edes yhdessä kuljetusmuodossa, jos eri säännöksiä tulkitaan sanamuodon mukaisesti. Rahdinkuljettajan kvalifioitu tuottamus on esimerkkinä tästä. Kansainvälisiä tiekuljetussopimuksia koskevan CMR-konvention englantilainen ja ranskalainen alkuperäisteksti eroavat vähän. Muun muassa tästä syystä on mahdollista tulkita samaa säännöstä eri tavalla. Tulkintaa laajennettaessa yhtenäisyyttä voidaan löytää yksittäisissä kuljetusmuodoissa ja yhdistetyissä kuljetuksissa. Tällöin rahdinkuljettajalta voidaan edellyttää tietoisuutta vahingonvaarasta myös tiekuljetuksissa, jotta kyseeseen voisi tulla kvalifioitu tuottamus. Tietoisuutta vahingonvaarasta vaaditaan säännöksissä jo merirahdinkuljettajalta mutta ei tierahdinkuljettajalta. Kvalifioidun tuottamuksen tulkintaperiaate olisi tie- ja merikuljetusten eri lakien ja konventioiden rahdinkuljettajien vastuusta analogiaa käyttämällä johdettu: Oikeutta vastuun rajoituksiin ei ole sillä, jonka näytetään aiheuttaneen vahingon tahallisesti tai törkeästä huolimattomuudesta tietäen, että sellainen vahinko todennäköisesti syntyy. Kuljetusmuotojen sääntelyn yhtenäinen tulkinta voidaan johtaa samaa asiaa sääntelevien tie- ja merikuljetusten säännöksistä. Oikeuskäytäntöä käytetään esimerkiksi vahvistamaan, että tuomarit ovat jo vaatineet tietoisuutta joissakin tuomioistuimissa, jotta kyse voi olla tierahdinkuljettajan kvalifioidusta tuottamuksesta. Apuna käytetään myös analogiaa. Kuljetusmuotojen sääntelyn yhtenäinen tulkinta ei voi olla lakien sanamuodon vastaisia. Tiekuljetuksissa esimerkiksi reklamaatio pitää tehdä 7 päivässä ja merikuljetuksissa 3 päivässä muussa kuin ulkoisesti havaittavissa olevasta vahingosta eikä reklamaation aika voi olla muuta kuin edellä mainitut päivät. Vain muuttamalla lainsäädäntöä voidaan saavuttaa yhtenäisyyttä tällaisissa tapauksissa. On tärkeää löytää kuljetusoikeudellista yhtenäisyyttä, jotta rahdinkuljettajan vastuussa on mahdollisimman vähän eroja yksittäisissä kuljetusmuodoissa ja yhdistetyissä kuljetuksissa. Tämä korostuu, koska yhdistetyt kuljetukset koostuvat yksittäisistä kuljetusmuodoista ja yhdistetyt kuljetukset ovat niin yleisiä tänä päivänä.1 Introduction Transport law is divided into different transport modes, and different modes have their own special laws. Domestic laws dealing with different transport modes are usually based on international unimodal conventions. Multimodal carriage, defined as carriage involving at least two different modes of transport, is common in the transport industry nowadays, and liability issues can be complex. Multimodal carriage is not regulated by international convention or domestic law in Finland. The research questions are as follows. How is a carrier’s unlimited liability regulated and interpreted in the carriage of goods by road, sea and multimodal transport? What are the alternatives to regulating multimodal transport? In which ways can interpretation act as a facilitator of uniformity, especially concerning wilful misconduct in road, sea and multimodal transport? The research is limited to goods transport by sea and road transport because those are the main transport modes and the most used combination of multimodal transport. A carrier’s unlimited liability is dealt with in connection with the carrier’s liabilities. Under consideration are the liability that exists between the carrier taking over the goods for transport and the time they are delivered, liability from delays in delivery, liability of people related to the performance of the contract of carriage, document liability and delivery liability. Unlimited liability and especially wilful misconduct have been chosen as examples of a carrier’s liability because they have severe consequences for the carrier. A carrier cannot limit its liability by claiming certain limits to liability and might lose its right to receive insurance compensation. Under consideration is jurisprudence research, although de lege ferenda methods are used in analyzing different models of multimodal transport regulation and recommendations to change legislation and conventions. Interpretation principles are considered a simple solution because they can be used to bring uniformity to the way the legislation and conventions are interpreted. De sententia ferenda research methods are also used because these interpretation principles are intended to be applied by the courts to create uniform court decisions. Perhaps after this kind of uniformity, convention could also be drafted for international multimodal transport. 2 Regulation of road, sea and multimodal transport A transport contract is a tripartite contract. The parties to the contract are usually the consignor and consignee of the goods to be transported and the carrier. The actual parties to the contract are usually the consignor and the carrier. The consignee has independent rights under the transport contract, and that is why this kind of contract is considered a tripartite contract. Transport law is mainly mandatory in nature. Road carriage is regulated by the international CMR convention in the countries that have ratified the convention; Finland has a domestic law based on the CMR convention. Sea carriage is regulated by the Haag Rules, the Haag-Visby Rules and the Hamburg rules. The Haag Rules and the Haag-Visby Rules are widely accepted internationally. The Hamburg Rules have not been a success because only a few countries have ratified them. In Finland, there is a domestic law that concerns international sea carriage, drafted together with the other Nordic countries. Multimodal carriage is not regulated by international convention, although attempts have been made to adopt this kind of convention for decades. The Geneva Convention, from 1980, was one of these attempts, but it never entered into force. The Rotterdam Rules is the newest convention of sea carriage and multimodal carriage that includes sea carriage. The Rotterdam Rules were drafted in 2009, but the convention has not yet to come into force because only two countries have ratified it. In Finland, there is no domestic law for multimodal transport, but the Netherlands and Germany, for example, have national laws that also apply to multimodal transport. There are two main ways to deal with multimodal transport. First, multimodal transport can be considered sui generis, i.e. independent in nature. In this approach, conventions regulating unimodal transport are not applied. Second, multimodal transport can be considered to consist of unimodal transport contracts, and unimodal transport conventions can be applied. Interpreting international conventions and domestic laws can cause problems in multimodal transport. Standard terms and the terms of the transport contract are also used in interpretation in cases when there is not mandatory law regulating the circumstance. Lex mercatoria, common legal principles in transport law or common legal principles in contract law can also be applied to complement the legislation and conventions. 3 Criterion of wilful misconduct It is difficult to find uniformity even in one transport mode if one interprets the various rules word for word. Wilful misconduct of the carrier is one example of that. English and French original texts of the CMR convention differ slightly. Also because of word-for-word interpretation, it is possible to interpret this same rule in a different way. Interpretation has to widen to find uniformity in unimodal and multimodal transport. By widen interpretation of regulation of wilful misconduct in road carriage knowledge of risk of damage can also be demanded from the road carrier that it can be a question of wilful misconduct. Regulations require this of sea carriers but not road carriers. Interpretation principle of wilful misconduct would be deduced from regulations in conventions and laws of road and sea carriage: The carrier does not have right to limit its liability if it is proved that the cause of loss, damage or a delay in delivery was done with intent or gross negligently with knowledge that that kind of loss, damage or a delay in delivery would probably result. 4 Liability of carrier and unlimited liability A carrier’s unlimited liability is dealt with in connection with the carrier’s liabilities. Under consideration are the liability that exists between the carrier taking over the goods for transport and the time they are delivered, liability from delays in delivery, liability of people related to the performance of the contract of carriage, document liability and delivery liability. In this chapter, the point of view is that of case law: in other words, how different courts have interpreted unlimited carrier liability and what the criteria for unlimited liability are. The consequences of carrier’s unlimited liability are also dealt with in this chapter. Interpretation principles can be deduced from rules of the same regulation of road and sea carriage laws. Case law is, for example, used to confirm that it has been demanded carrier’s knowledge of risk of damage that it is a question of road carrier’s wilful misconduct. Analogy is also used. Interpretation principles cannot be against the rules in laws. The rule for giving notice of invisible damage is, for example, seven days in road transport and three days in sea transport. In these cases the time to give notice cannot be anything else than those days in road and sea transport. Only by changing the legislation and conventions is it possible to achieve uniformity in cases like this. 5 Alternatives to regulate multimodal transport The Rotterdam Rules are still under ratification, and time will tell whether they will be a success internationally in relation to sea carriage and multimodal transport that include sea carriage. It is important to be prepared for the Rotterdam Rules entering into force although it may be unlikely that this will happen. Internationally unified transport law is a widely accepted and ideal way of organizing transport law legislation, but, at the same time, it is an accepted fact that this is only an aspiration that will not be realized. It is very difficult to achieve uniformity when different nations have different interests. EU is one possible region in which there is a desire to achieve regional legislation if international conventions, e.g. the Rotterdam Rules, fail to materialize. The current way to regulate multimodal transport is a network system in which unimodal transport conventions are also applied in multimodal transport. Standard terms or the terms of transport contracts govern other issues which are not covered by obligatory law. A modified system is a compromise between the uniform international legislation and the network system. One proposal has been to make changes in unimodal conventions to achieve uniformity in transport law. Multimodal transport could be regulated by dispositive law, but this approach also encounters problems, for example the question of whether mandatory unimodal conventions could still be applied. Germany has its own multimodal transport law legislation, which is a combination of mandatory, dispositive provisions and standard terms. 6 Conclusions Transport law is considered a separate branch of law. Interpretation principles in this research are considered to include common principles in transport law. Interpretation principles concern road and sea carriage and multimodal transport with road and sea carriage. Both of these principles unify transport law. Common legal principles unify all the branches of law. Legal rules are detailed legal norms which represent the principles behind these rules. This research is based on both case study and legal theory. Ninetyseven cases dealt with in this research are related to wilful misconduct. In approximately half of the cases, it was a question of wilful misconduct if the carrier had knowledge that loss, damage or delay in delivery would probably result. If the carrier did not have this knowledge, it was not a question of wilful misconduct. Only in less than 30% of the cases was the carrier’s behavior regarded as wilful misconduct even if the carrier’s knowledge hasn’t been evaluated. Out of the 97 cases, 27 were Finnish. Only in three of the Finnish cases was the carrier’s behavior regarded as wilful misconduct, even when the carrier’s knowledge was not evaluated. Limited liability of the carrier is one of the special features of transport law. This is the main rule, and unlimited liability of the carrier is an exception that applies only if for example the carrier has acted with intent or gross negligence and with the knowledge that that kind of loss, damage or a delay in delivery would probably result. Limited liability is the requirement for carriers to get cargo liability insurance for consignments. With unlimited carrier liability, carriers would most likely be unable to insure their freight. Unlimited liability is a useful sanction in those rare cases of intentional carrier behavior that justifies requiring the carrier to compensate for all the damage it has caused. An international convention concerning all transport modes and multimodal transport would be an ideal solution in transport law if all important trading countries would ratify it. The Rotterdam Rules is the latest attempt at regulating multimodal transport that includes sea transport. Ratification processes are slow, but the future of this convention does not look good, as only two countries have ratified it in the past five years. The Rotterdam Rules do not cover all transport modes, and for this reason it is not an ideal solution. It might be possible to change current unimodal conventions and interpret legislation and conventions uniformity on mind. It is important to find uniformity in transport law to ensure that there is as little difference as possible in unimodal and multimodal carriage in the liability of the carrier. This is emphasized because multimodal carriage is made up of different types of unimodal carriage and multimodal carriage is so common nowadays