Opinion ID: 777960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of the Carmack Amendment to the Case at Bar

Text: 11 Greentree contends that (1) under the Carmack Amendment, only a shipper or other person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1), is a proper plaintiff, and (2) Union Pacific is not a shipper or other person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading but an intermediate carrier, and therefore the District Court lacked authority to entertain Union Pacific's suit against Greentree. 5 The Supreme Court has held that the Carmack Amendment was enacted to relieve shippers of the burden of searching out a particular negligent carrier from among the often numerous carriers handling an interstate shipment of goods, Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113, 119, 70 S.Ct. 499, 94 L.Ed. 698 (1950), by permitting a shipper to hold either the initiating carrier or delivering carrier liable for damages to its goods in interstate commerce, Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Tex. Mexican Ry. Co., 331 U.S. 731, 733, 67 S.Ct. 1440, 91 L.Ed. 1779 (1947), regardless of which carrier actually caused the damage. An initiating or delivering carrier liable to a shipper may then recover from a connecting carrier for damages that occur on the connecting carrier's line. Id. See also Commodity Credit Corp. v. Norton, 167 F.2d 161, 164 (3d Cir.1948) (quoting Ga., Fla. & Ala. R.R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 194, 195, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948 (1916)). 12 Under ordinary circumstances, a through bill of lading is issued by the initiating carrier and presented to the shipper. This document governs the entire transportation, and thus fixes the obligations of all participating carriers to the extent that the terms of the bill of lading are applicable and valid. Commodity Credit Corp., 167 F.2d at 164 ( quoting Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. at 194, 195, 36 S.Ct. 541). The Supreme Court explained in Mexican Light & Power that a second bill of lading issued by a connecting carrier does not alter the terms of the original bill of lading unless the connecting carrier has received a consideration for the bill of lading in addition to that which flowed under the bill of lading issued by the initiating carrier. 331 U.S. at 734, 67 S.Ct. 1440. 13 In the case at bar, there was uncontroverted evidence that, subsequent to the issuance by American President Lines of a bill of lading, Southern Pacific and Greentree entered into a second contract of carriage: a contract under which Greentree was to receive—and, in the event, did receive—$2904 to transport two trailers, one of which contained the shipment of cigarettes, from Phoenix to California. This contract was separate from the American President Lines bill of lading, and the consideration paid to Greentree was—as the Court put it in Mexican Light & Power — in addition to that which flowed under the [first] bill of lading. Id. 6 Thus, Union Pacific (in succession to Southern Pacific), as shipper, properly initiated this suit against Greentree, as carrier, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. 7