CMR liability without a limit: wilful misconduct under Article 29

Article 29 CMR can remove the carrier’s protection under provisions that exclude or limit liability. The claimant must prove wilful misconduct or conduct treated as equivalent to wilful misconduct under the law of the court seised.

Under Austrian case law, conduct equivalent to wilful misconduct in the CMR context generally means gross negligence. A high value of the goods or an unsatisfactory transport result is not enough. The decisive points are the concrete acts, known risks, warnings and safeguards in the particular carriage.

This article explains when the CMR liability limit can fall away and how the proof is prepared. The ordinary calculation under Article 23 CMR, a declared value under Article 24 CMR and a special interest in delivery under Article 26 CMR are mentioned only for distinction.

Article 29(1) CMR removes the carrier’s protection under provisions of this chapter that exclude or limit liability or reverse the burden of proof. The condition is that the carrier caused the damage wilfully or through conduct treated as equivalent to wilful misconduct under the law of the court seised.

The liability limit does not disappear merely because the claimant alleges serious conduct. It must first be established that the carriage falls under the CMR and that a relevant loss or damage occurred. The next question is whether the conduct reaches the Article 29 threshold and caused the damage.

The practical consequence concerns the defence available to the carrier. If Article 29 applies, the carrier cannot rely on the relevant exclusion or limit. The claim is not automatically established in every other respect. Damage, causation, entitlement and the remaining requirements still have to be assessed.

Austrian case law identifies in particular Articles 17(2) and 17(4), Article 18, and the limits in Articles 23 and 25 CMR. Article 17(2) concerns liability for loss, damage and delay during the period of custody. Article 17(4) and Article 18 deal with exclusions and evidential issues.

Article 23 CMR generally provides the calculation and limit for compensation in cases of loss or damage. Article 25 contains a corresponding limit for damage. If Article 29 is satisfied, the carrier cannot use these protections against the claimant.

Articles 24 and 26 CMR take a different approach. The consignor may record a value or a special interest in delivery subject to the Convention’s requirements. Such a declaration is not required for Article 29. It also does not replace proof of qualified misconduct.

Article 29 CMR refers the meaning of equivalent misconduct to the law of the court seised. Under Austrian case law, conduct treated as equivalent to wilful misconduct in the CMR context means gross negligence. It is an objectively particularly serious breach of care that is also seriously blameworthy in the circumstances.

Gross negligence does not follow from every lapse and does not follow from every serious cargo loss. The Supreme Court’s formulation focuses on ignoring simple and obvious considerations even though the damage was foreseeable as probable rather than merely possible. The assessment remains fact-specific.

The situation before the damage therefore matters. What risk could be recognised? What information did the carrier have? Were there warnings, special goods values, security instructions or earlier incidents? These facts may show ordinary carelessness or an exceptional breach.

A claimant seeking recovery without the CMR limit bears the burden of proving wilful misconduct or gross negligence. The Supreme Court reiterated this in 7 Ob 54/26f of 24 June 2026. The claimant must prove the circumstances showing qualified conduct causing the damage.

Direct proof of the carrier’s state of mind is not required. It may be enough to establish the concrete conduct and the objective facts of the event. The court may infer the internal attitude from those circumstances. A general assumption that the carrier should have foreseen the damage is not enough.

Build the proof from the sequence of events. Put takeover, instructions, checks, interruptions, parking places, handovers and damage in time order. The more precisely the external facts are established, the clearer the applicable duty and causal link become.

Article 29(2) CMR extends the rule to employees and other persons used by the carrier in performing the carriage. The qualified misconduct must occur in the exercise of their functions. Attribution therefore depends on the particular carriage and the task being performed.

The file should identify more than the contracting carrier. Drivers, dispatchers, subcontractors, warehouse staff and other persons may matter where their conduct is connected with the carriage. Record the order, instructions, handover, responsibility and specific act.

The provision also addresses the personal liability of those persons. Where paragraph 2 applies, they likewise cannot rely on the protections referred to in paragraph 1 for their personal liability. The result depends on the function, act and level of fault in the particular case.

Article 17 CMR is the starting point for carrier liability during the period from takeover to delivery. It also contains special risks and other grounds that may exclude liability. Article 18 adds rules on proof where such circumstances are relied on.

Article 29 operates within this system of protection. If qualified misconduct is proved, the carrier cannot rely on the relevant exclusion or limit. A loss or damaged package does not by itself establish unlimited liability.

Damage and causation remain essential. The file must show which conduct caused or contributed to the damage. Multiple causes, a contribution by the consignor or an unclear handover may affect the assessment. The [CMR liability check](/en/tools/cmr-liability-check/) helps structure route, event and evidence.

The Article 29 assessment begins with the particular risk that materialised. In a theft case, value, weight, parking place, lighting, guarding, locking, departure time and the possibility of unnoticed removal may matter. The Supreme Court stresses that security measures cannot be assessed through one rule for every carriage.

Different facts may dominate in a damage case: known sensitivity of the goods, a specific instruction, an obvious securing defect, an alarm or a failure to react. The technical cause must be linked to the carrier’s conduct and to the damage.

A three-part chronology is useful. First record the information available before takeover. Second map decisions and checks during carriage. Third record time, place, condition and response after discovery. The [carrier liability overview](/en/topics/carrier-liability-cargo-damage/) explains the wider liability framework.

Equating the amount of damage with qualified misconduct: Even a high cargo value proves neither wilful misconduct nor gross negligence. Conduct, risk and causation remain decisive.

Alleging every serious breach in general terms: The allegation must be supported by concrete facts. General criticism does not establish what happened during the carriage.

Confusing Article 29 with a declared value: Articles 24 and 26 CMR may affect the calculation. They do not establish the removal of the liability limit because of misconduct.

Holding the carrier responsible only because of the result: Loss or damage shows the harm, not yet the qualified cause.

Leaving employees and helpers out: Article 29(2) CMR requires examining the people and acts used in performing the carriage.

Delaying preservation of evidence: Tracking, parking information, packaging and condition photographs may change or disappear.

Secure the transport order, confirmation, consignment note, description of the goods and all instructions. For high-value or particularly exposed goods, include warnings, agreed safeguards, insurance information and information about the usual procedure.

Add the actual transport trail: takeover, tracking, GPS data, driver communications, handovers, parking place, photographs, video and delivery receipt. Record which file is the original and who created or transmitted it.

Complete the file with the damage notice, carrier response, reports, invoices and a traceable calculation of the loss. The [guidance on preserving cargo-damage evidence](/en/journal/cargo-damage-preserving-evidence/) helps organise first evidence. The limit and Article 29 should then be assessed from the complete sequence.

Receive new articles and legal updates from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.