Successive carriers under the CMR: recourse and proof

When goods on an international road route are carried by several successive carriers, the liability chain remains connected until delivery is completed. Articles 34 to 40 CMR regulate when later carriers become parties to the contract, which carriers may be sued, and how recourse is allocated internally.

For the consignor and consignee, the final carrier is therefore not automatically the only contact. For the carriers, the original consignment note, every handover, the condition of the goods and the documented leg of the journey are decisive. These records help determine who is liable externally and who bears which share internally.

This article deals with successive carriers under a single CMR contract. General liability for an individual transport loss, cash on delivery and the classification of a forwarding agent are addressed only by way of distinction. The focus is recourse and proof of the leg where the damage occurred.

Article 34 CMR requires a carriage that is the subject of a single contract and is performed by successive road carriers. Each carrier is then liable for the performance of the entire carriage. The second and each subsequent carrier becomes a party to the contract by accepting the goods and the consignment note on its terms.

This distinguishes one single contract from a chain of separate instructions. The consignment note is important evidence, but it does not alone answer every question about the contractual relationship. Orders, subcontracting agreements, receipts and the actual performance must be read together.

The first review should produce a role list. It should identify the consignor, the contract carrier, every later carrier, any subcontracted carrier and the consignee. Each leg should also show the exact place and time of acceptance.

Article 36 CMR names three possible defendants for claims concerning loss, damage or delay: the first carrier, the last carrier, or the carrier that performed the leg during which the event causing the loss, damage or delay occurred. One action may be brought against several carriers together.

This rule supports enforcement where goods travelled over several legs. It does not remove the need to establish that the CMR applies and to prove the relevant facts. The last carrier is visible when goods are delivered damaged, but that fact alone does not identify the leg where the event occurred.

External liability and internal recourse are separate questions. The person entitled to claim must identify the appropriate carrier under the Convention. The carriers can then resolve who bears the economic loss between themselves.

Article 35 CMR requires the carrier taking over the goods to give the preceding carrier a dated and signed receipt. The carrier must enter its name and address on the second copy of the consignment note. Where appropriate, reservations under Article 8 paragraph 2 CMR belong on the second copy and on the receipt.

A general statement such as “damaged at delivery” will often not establish the damage leg. Secure the condition of the packaging, packages, seals, quantities, visible damage and each communication. For temperature-controlled, fragile or high-value goods, measurement data and specific handover records may also be needed.

Article 9 CMR gives the consignment note evidentiary relevance in the relations between successive carriers. Its entries provide a starting point. They do not remove the need to resolve contradictory information, later amendments and the actual condition of the goods.

The guide to consignment notes and documentation and the transport damage checklist support an orderly evidence file.

If a carrier has paid compensation, interest and costs, Article 37 CMR governs its recourse. The carrier that caused the loss or damage bears the compensation alone. If two or more carriers caused the damage, each pays an amount corresponding to its share of liability.

If the individual shares cannot be established where several carriers contributed, Article 37 point b CMR allocates the amount according to each carrier’s share of the carriage charges. If it cannot be established which carrier caused the damage at all, Article 37 point c distributes the compensation among all carriers in that same proportion.

This graduated structure makes proof decisive. A mere possibility that the damage occurred on one leg does not by itself justify sole recourse against that carrier. Handover documents, condition records, tracking data, photographs, expert evidence and the timing of events must be assessed together.

Article 38 CMR addresses the insolvency of a carrier. Its unpaid share is allocated among the other carriers in proportion to their shares of the carriage charges. The calculation therefore needs the amount assigned to the insolvent carrier and the relevant charge shares of the others.

This rule concerns allocation within the carrier chain. It does not automatically change the consignor’s or consignee’s claim against a defendant permitted by Article 36 CMR. The external claim, payment and internal accounting should be presented separately.

In an insolvency, secure the proof of claim, payment records, contract documents and the calculation of the charge shares. An incomplete insolvency file can make the recourse amount and the allocation among the remaining carriers impossible to verify.

Article 39 CMR permits a recourse action before the competent court of the state where one of the carriers has its habitual residence, principal place of business, or the branch or agency through which the contract was made. One recourse action may be brought against all carriers involved.

Under Article 39 paragraph 1 CMR, a carrier facing recourse cannot argue that the paying carrier paid wrongfully where compensation was fixed by a court judgment, the carrier was properly notified of the proceedings and had the opportunity to participate. Notice of the earlier proceedings and the opportunity to participate must therefore remain provable.

Article 39 paragraph 4 CMR applies the rules of Article 32 CMR to recourse claims. Where there is a final judgment, the period begins when the judgment becomes final. Without such a judgment, it begins on the date of actual payment. The payment date, judgment, notice and evidence belong in a separate recourse chronology.

The freight claim limitation overview can help organise dates. It cannot replace an assessment of the particular recourse claim.

Article 40 CMR permits carriers to make agreements between themselves that depart from Articles 37 and 38 CMR. This concerns internal allocation between carriers. It is different from an agreement that restricts the consignor’s or consignee’s claim against a defendant permitted by the Convention.

An internal agreement should state clearly the relevant leg, carriage charge, liability share and evidentiary basis. Unclear clauses make the later accounting difficult, especially where several versions of the order, consignment note and subcontract are in circulation.

Article 41 CMR generally makes agreements that directly or indirectly derogate from the Convention null and void. A recourse agreement must therefore first be classified: does it only alter the internal allocation under Articles 37 and 38, or does it shift mandatory CMR rights and duties more broadly?

Checking only the last carrier: Article 36 CMR identifies several possible defendants. The entire chain must be recorded.

Treating every order as the consignment note: A single CMR contract and separate subcontracting arrangements can create different roles.

Inferring the damage leg from delivery: Delivery shows when the damage was discovered, not automatically where the event occurred.

Mixing external liability and recourse: The claim of the consignor or consignee and the internal allocation after payment require separate assessments.

Assuming one cause: Article 37 CMR has different rules for one carrier, several carriers and an unknown responsible carrier.

Starting the recourse period on the date of damage: Under Article 39 paragraph 4 CMR, final judgment or actual payment is particularly relevant.

Create a transport chronology from the order to delivery. List every carrier, every leg, every handover, the recorded condition and each entry on the consignment note. Link discrepancies to the original document and the time when they were recorded.

Then separate the claim levels. For the external claim, Article 36 CMR, notices, reservations and the amount of loss are central. For recourse, add payment or a final judgment, notice to the other carriers, Articles 37 to 40 CMR and the period under Article 39 paragraph 4.

Where handover records conflict, the damage location is unknown or several carriers may have contributed, the complete transport file should be reviewed early. This separates the direction of the claim from the internal allocation and keeps both grounded in provable facts.

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