Common Carrier - Legal Implications

Legal Implications

Common carriers are subject to special laws and regulations which differ depending on the means of transport used, e.g. sea carriers are often governed by quite different rules than road carriers or railway carriers. In common law jurisdictions as well as under international law, a common carrier is absolutely liable for goods carried by it, with four exceptions:

• An act of nature
• An act of the public enemies
• Fault or fraud by the shipper
• An inherent defect in the goods

A sea carrier may also, according to the Hague-Visby Rules, escape liability on other grounds than the above mentioned, e.g. a sea carrier is not liable for damages to the goods if the damage is the result of a fire on board the ship or the result of a navigational error committed by the ship's master or other crewmember.

Carriers typically incorporate further exceptions into a contract of carriage, often specifically claiming not to be a common carrier.

An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason (e.g. post doesn't allow to send cash). As of 2007, the status of Internet Service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).

It is also important to remember that the term common carrier does not exist in continental Europe but is distinctive to common law systems, particularly law systems in the US.

In Ludditt v Ginger Coote Airways the Privy Council (Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, Lord Porter and Lord Simonds) held the liability of a public or common carrier of passengers is only to carry with due care. This is more limited than that of a common carrier of goods. The complete freedom of a carrier of passengers at common law to make such contracts as he thinks fit was not curtailed by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854, and a specific contract which enlarges, diminishes or excludes his duty to take care (e.g., by a condition that the passenger travels "at his own risk against all casualties") cannot be pronounced to be unreasonable if the law authorises it. There was nothing in the provisions of the Canadian Transport Act 1938 section 25 which would invalidate a provision excluding liability. Grand Trunk Railway Co of Canada v Robinson A.C. 740 was followed and Peek v North Staffordshire Railway 11 E.R. 1109 was distinguished.