(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 726, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1 ; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634 .)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:7-309.
1973 Ed., § 28:7-309.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 3, Uniform Bills of Lading Act.
Changes: Consolidated and rewritten.
Purposes of Changes: The old uniform act provided that bills of lading could not contain terms impairing the obligation of reasonable care. Whether this is violated by a stipulation that in case of loss the bailee’s liability is limited to stated amounts has been much controverted. For interstate rail transportation the matter is settled by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (See 49 U.S.C.A. s 20(11) ). The present section is a generalized version of the Interstate Commerce Act provisions. The obligation of due care is radically qualified, in the case of maritime bills and international airbills, by federal legislation and treaty. All this special legislation would remain in effect even if Congress enacts this Code, including the present Article. See Section 7-103.
Subsection (1) does not impair any rule of law imposing the liability of an insurer on a common carrier in intrastate commerce. Subsection (2), however, applies to such liability as well as to liability based on negligence. The entire section is subject under Section 7-103 to applicable provisions in filed tariffs, such as the common disclaimer of responsibility for undeclared articles of extraordinary value, hidden from view. Tariffs which lawfully provide a maximum unit value beyond which goods are not taken fall within the same principle, and are expressly covered by the words “value as lawfully provided in the tariff.”
Cross Reference: Section 7-103.
Definitional Cross References: “Action”. Section 1-201.
“Bill of lading”. Section 1-201.
“Consignor”. Section 7-102.
“Document”. Section 7-102.
“Goods”. Section 7-102.
“Value”. Section 1-201.
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-309.
Changes: References to tariffs eliminated because of deregulation, adding reference to transportation agreements, and for style.
Purposes: 1. A bill of lading may also serve as the contract between the carrier and the bailor. Parties in their contract should be able to limit the amount of damages for breach of that contract including breach of the duty to take reasonable care of the goods. The parties cannot disclaim by contract the carrier’s obligation of care. Section 1-302.
Federal statutes and treaties for air, maritime and rail transport may alter the standard of care. These federal statutes and treaties preempt this section when applicable. Section 7-103. Subsection (a) does not impair any rule of law imposing the liability of an insurer on a common carrier in intrastate commerce. Subsection (b), however, applies to the common carrier’s liability as an insurer as well as to liability based on negligence. Subsection (b) allows the term limiting damages to appear either in the bill of lading or in the parties’ transportation agreement. Compare 7-204(b). Subsection (c) allows the parties to agree to provisions regarding time and manner of presenting claims or commencing actions if the provisions are either in the bill of lading or the transportation agreement. Compare 7-204(c). Transportation agreements are commonly used to establish agreed terms between carriers and shippers that have an on-going relationship.
2. References to public tariffs in former Section 7-309(2) and (3) have been deleted in light of the modern era of deregulation. See Comment 2 to Section 7-103. If a tariff is required under state or federal law, pursuant to Section 7-103(a), the tariff would control over the rule of this section. As governed by contract law, parties may incorporate by reference the limits on the amount of damages or the reasonable provisions as to the time and manner of presenting claims set forth in applicable tariffs, e.g. a maximum unit value beyond which goods are not taken or a disclaimer of responsibility for undeclared articles of extraordinary value.
3. As under former Section 7-309(2), subsection (b) provides that a limitation of damages is ineffective if the carrier has converted the goods to its own use. A mere failure to redeliver the goods is not conversion to the carrier’s own use. “Conversion to its own use” is narrower than the idea of conversion generally. Art Masters Associates, Ltd. v. United Parcel Service, 77 N.Y.2d 200, 567 N.E.2d 226 (1990); See, Kemper Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ex. Corp., 252 F.3d 509 (1st Cir)534 U.S. 1020 (2001) (opinion interpreting federal law).
4. As used in this section, damages may include damages arising from delay in delivery. Delivery dates and times are often specified in the parties’ contract. See Section 7-403.
Cross Reference: Sections 1-302, 7-103, 7-204, 7-403.
Definitional Cross References: “Action”. Section 1-201.
“Bill of lading”. Section 1-201.
“Carrier”. Section 7-102.
“Consignor”. Section 7-102.
“Document of Title”. Section 1-102.
“Goods”. Section 7-102.
“Value”. Section 1-204.
Part 4.
Warehouse Receipts and Bills of Lading: General Obligations.
