Liability Clause Considered Ambiguous
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ii/HAT was described as an 'IV ambiguous clause in the conditions of carriage recommended by the Road Haulage Association, formed a subject. for -discussion "at the May meeting the Leech branch of the -Inchistf.ial. Traniport'AsS.ociatfort. The clikise iS tharwhieh limits the road haula.ge can-: tractor's liability for loss or damage of coniigriments exceeding I cwt., to "£10 per gross cwt, and pro rata far any part of a 'cwt., on the goodsso lost or
damaged."
Mr. K. A. Lamb, of Lep Transport, Ltd., Selby, said that the wording of the clause was such that it was open to two interpretations. The first limited the carrier's liability, on a 'pro rata basis, to £200 per ton of the load carried, but according to the second interpretation the carrier was liable for the first £200 loss in respect of a ton of gciods, which was quite different.
Recalling that the -R.H.A. conditions Of carriage were largely based on those used by the Ministry of Transport's wartime Road Haulage Organization, he said tihat the Ministry. conditions clearly indicated that the £200 per ton limit of liability was on a pro rata
basis, but ambiguity had arisen through rewording in the R.H./,'s adaptation. He anticipated that, like the railways, the Road Transport Executive would, itself, stand the risk of goods-in-transit claims for loss or damage, instead of taking out insurance to cover such claims.
Mr. C. H. Henderson, chairman of the branch, instanced that if a £150 consignment of clothing was sent, by rail, the railways gave the consignor full cover against risk of loss or damage, but under the £200 per ton pro rata liability limit for road transport the amount of cover for such a consignment would not be more than about £10, although the rite charged for carriage by road might be higher, When Mr. Henderson asked why the user should have to go to the expense of having to take out his own insurance to cover transport of his goods by road, when he could obtain full cover by putting them on rail, Mr. Ellison said his experience was that in some cases it was well worth while to take out extra insurance for the•sake of sending goods by road, chiefly, because of quicker delivery and less expense in packing.