Article by Jack G. Knebel and Denise Savoie Blocker
Before the container revolution, cargo moved leisurely from truck or train to ship's tackle, across the oceans, and then onto rail car or truck. A carrier would inspect every item for damage, sign a receipt, and issue its own bill of lading, setting forth the terms of its carriage and the limits on its liability. If problems arose, the shipper would know where to turn. The Federal Maritime Commission regulated an ocean carrier while the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated a railroad or trucker. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Harter Act covered damage to the goods on or around the ship, and the Interstate Commerce Act applied when cargo was mishandled by a railroad or motor carrier. Although the applicable statutes and regulations were complex, they worked reasonably well because the sea, rail, and road carriers were separate and distinct entities, providing separate and distinct services under separate and distinct transportation documents, and were governed by separate and distinct regulatory and liability regimes.
This separation was changed, however, by the container revolution, by the integration of sea and land carriage that followed, and by the move to deregulate transportation. Carriers now offer door-to-door service under a single bill of lading. Vehicles are driven directly onto Ro-Ro ships, barges full of cargo are lifted onto oceangoing LASH vessels; and nearly everywhere in the world, individual cartons can be stuffed into containers that are not opened again until arrival at final destination. Vessel operators own their rail equipment and trucks; their double-stack trains carry their containers across the country. Not to be outdone, land carriers now operate international freight forwarders/NVOCC as well as oceangoing ships.
Nevertheless, statutes and regulations designed to deal with separate transportation movements by sea, rail, or truck still govern this “‘intermodal,” “multimodal,” or “combined” transportation. Furthermore, deregulation of the transportation industry has not necessarily helped because gaps in regulation have created their own problems.
Though the result of multimodalism is transportation efficiency, regulatory and legal confusion are its by-products. For example, who, if anyone, decides what constitutes a fair charge for this intermodal transportation? To whom does the shipper turn if the cargo is damaged? What are the limits on the carriers' liabilities? When must parties file claims and suits?
These and related questions are the subject of this Article. First, we shall discuss the statutes and regulations currently governing multimodal transportation in the United States. Next, we shall address the confusion that results from these overlapping regimes. Finally, we shall suggest ways of dealing with the problems resulting from this confusion.
About the Author
Jack G. Knebel; Denise Savoie Blocker. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco.
Citation
64 Tul. L. Rev. 543 (1989)