District Court finds Carmack inapplicable to domestic leg of international shipmentBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, March 2010If nothing else, this case underscores the importance of how the Supreme Court will resolve the conflicts among the Circuits on the issues being addressed in the pending Regal-Beloit Corp. appeal from the 9th Circuit.
FMCSA bars driver “texting” while drivingBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, March 2010Electronic devices used for texting are prohibited under current FMCSR safety regulations.
Carrier not a broker and remains liable for cargo damageBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, December 2009 In Aioi Ins. Co. v. Timely Integrated, Inc., 2009 WL 2474072 (S.D.N.Y. 8/12/09), shipper Yazaki hired motor carrier Timely to move auto parts from AZ to IL.
Supreme Court to hear cargo claim case: Does Carmack or COGSA control?By William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, December 2009The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a 9th Circuit case for review where the issue will be which federal statute controls in a cargo damage claim arising from an Oklahoma train derailment on a through bill of lading shipment that originated in China with a sea move to Long Beach, CA followed by an inland rail move to Midwest U.S. destinations in Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., 557 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2/17/09).
Appellate Court chooses the substantive law of the place of crash as controlling in derailment actionBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, June 2009In The Burlington Northern And Santa Fe Railway Company v. ABC-NACO, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the Circuit Court of Cook County’s finding that Arizona law controlled product liability/negligence claims that resulted from an Arizona derailment of a BNSF train.
Carrier wins summary judgment in cargo damage suitBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, March 2009In Design X Manufacturing, Inc. v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc., the United States District Court for Connecticut granted motor carrier ABF’s motion for summary judgment in a shipper’s cargo damage lawsuit.
9th Circuit finds Carmack preempts intentional tort claim against moverBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, October 2008The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a California District Court ruling that the Carmack Amendment of 49 U.S.C. §14706 preempted an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim arising out of an interstate household goods move inWhite v. Mayflower Transit, L.L.C., Case No. 07-55528 (decided 9/12/08).
Carmack damages do not allow for any shipper windfallBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, June 2008In Houmani v. Roadway Express, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20774 (N.D. Oh., 3/17/08), the Court granted Roadway partial summary judgment in an action where the appropriate damage standard under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §14706, was at issue.
No railroad liability when auto’s driver hits a stopped train on dark, foggy nightBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, June 2008In Phillip Morris v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, No. 4-07-0816 (5/18/08), the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a wrongful death claim arising from a January 1, 2004 incident where the plaintiff’s decedent crashed his car into an Illinois Central train that was stopped at a rail crossing at 7:04 p.m.
Illinois Supreme Court affirms finding of truck owner-operator employee statusBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, December 2007A controversial issue in transportation law is whether owner-operators who lease their trucks to motor carriers are employees or independent contractors.
Seventh Circuit enforces tariff non-liability rule against jewelerBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, April 2007In Trieber & Straub, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 474 F.3d 379 (7th Cir., 1/9/07), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit both affirmed and modified a summary judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in favor of the United Parcel Service (“UPS”) in an action where jeweler Trieber sued UPS for the loss of a diamond ring in transit in UPS’ air freight service.
Seventh Circuit rejects Disabilities Act claim in driver termination for a blood pressure disorderBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, April 2007On March 21, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago affirmed a summary judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Schneider National, Inc., No. 06-3108.
First District finds indemnity agreement covers claims of indemnitee negligenceBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, March 2007On October 1, 2003, a truck driver who operated a tractor hauling a China Ocean Shipping Co. container hit a bus, killing passenger John Buenz. Buenz’s wife then brought a wrongful death claim against the driver, the transportation company and COSCO.
Federal District Court finds preemption bars carrier’s state law tort claimsBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, February 2007In Yellow Transp., Inc. v. DM Transp. Management Services, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (“ICCTA”) preempted Yellow’s state law tort claims against DM.
5th District rejects class contract claim against Federal Express CorporationBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, November 2006In Moody v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 5-05-0519 (decided 10/19/06), the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings for defendant Federal Express (“FedEx”) on a one-count breach of contract class action claim.
First District finds a non-solicitation clause to be unenforceableBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, May 2006In C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Kindersley Transport, Ltd., Case No. 1-05-0562 (March 31, 2006), the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District held that C.H. Robinson’s back-solicitation clause in its broker/carrier agreement with Kindersley was unenforceable.
Third Circuit requires written notice as a condition precendent for Carmack amendment cargo claimBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, May 2006In S & H Hardware & Supply Co. v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., 432 F.3d 550 (3rd Cir., 12/19/05), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a Carmack Amendment cargo loss and damage claim brought under 49 U.S.C. §14706 because the claimant did not file a written notice of loss or damage within nine months of the delivery date.
D.C. Circuit rejects new FMCSA driver training regulationBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, February 2006The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) of the United States Department of Transportation (“US DOT”) final rule concerning entry level training for commercial vehicle operators in Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. FMCSA, Case Nos. 04-1233, 1236 and 1418, decided December 2, 2005.
Indiana District Court sustains motor carrier owner operator practices against OOIDA attackBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, February 2006On September 27, 2005, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana denied the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and found that motor carrier Mayflower Transit, Inc.’s practices of passing its public liability and property damage (“PL/PD”) insurance costs on to its independent contractor owner operator drivers did not violate the United States Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) leasing regulation at 49 C.F.R. Part 376.12(j)(1) in Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Cause No. 1P-98-458-CB/S, decided, 9/27/05.
When’s a contract a contract?By William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, September 2005The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has reversed a $5 million breach of contract judgment which an Illinois motor carrier obtained against a truck manufacturer in PFT Roberson, Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., Case No. 04-3100, decided August 25, 2005.
Court finds no FMCSR duty stated against motor carrier or shipper for loading issuesBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, April 2005In Turner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 02 C-5012 (12/1/04), Judge Samuel DerYeghiayan of the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSA”) in 49 C.F.R. Part 390 et seq. created no duty for either motor carriers or shippers regarding the loading or unloading of interstate shipments on private property.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.