Liability of Successive Carriers

AuthorJohn D. Holding, John S. Hoff
[77 ]
Chapter 6: Liability of Successive Carriers
The Montreal and Warsaw Conventions both provide that, in the case
of carriage performed by several successive carriers and falling with-
in the def‌inition of successive carriage in Article 1(3), each carrier who
accepts passengers, baggage, or cargo is subject to the rules of the
Conventions and deemed to be a party to the contract of carriage inso-
far as it relates to that part of the carriage performed by that carrier.1
The def‌inition of successive carr iage is covered in Chapter 2(2),
and refers to carriage “regarded by the parties as a single operation.”
In Kenner Products v. Flying Tiger Line,2 a shipper-consignee sought
to recover under the Warsaw Convention from a carrier and two agent
air carr iers for the loss of cargo that was to be transported from Tai-
wan to Ohio. The shipper, as consignee of the initial carrier’s waybill,
was entitled to sue all of the carriers only if they all regarded the trans-
port of the cargo as a single operation. However, the f‌irst carrier’s air
waybill, naming the shipper as consignee, was for the transportation
of two packages from Taiwan to Cincinnati, the second carrier’s air
waybill, to which the shipper was not a party, was for the shipment
of 300 cartons (including the two packages) from Taiwan to Chicago,
1 Montreal Convention, Art. 36, pa ra. 1; Warsaw Convention, Art. 30.
2 CCH 20 Avi. 18,282 F.Supp. (N.D.Ill.1987).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT