1. The sender is not to be blamed for contributory negligence if he does not make any (safety) requirements with regard to the means of transport when transporting a consignment by truck to England; despite the well-known risk of shipments being damaged by migrants.
2. Conditions similar to a civil war at the canal ports do not constitute an exclusion of liability according to Art. 17 Para. 2 CMR when a tarpaulin trailer is provided.
OLG Koblenz, Urt. v. 04.02.2021 – 6 U 728/20
= Transportrecht 6 2021, S. 272 ff
1. The assignment by the insolvency holder converts the cover claim aimed at exemption into a payment claim.
2. Reflecting the obligations of the policyholder under the insurance contract, if the insurer is called upon after the insolvency administrator has assigned the coverage claims over the policyholder’s assets, the insurer is obliged to obtain information on the policyholder’s liability from the policyholder and therefore the insurer cannot declare himself ignorant of the liability of the policyholder.
Hans. OLG Bremen, Urt. v. 02.10.2020 – 2 U 168/19
= Transportrecht 6 2021, S. 281 ff
According to § 148 ZPO, recourse proceedings are to be suspended if it is disputed in another judicial process whether the claimant in the recourse proceedings is responsible for the damage at all.
Hans. OLG Hamburg, Beschl. v. 28.01.2021 – 6 W 2/21
= Transportrecht 5 2021, S. 253 f
1. A contract for the installation of a rectifier system from the means of transport into a switch room by means of a crane is to be qualified as a freight contract within the meaning of §§ 425 ff. HGB.
2. The carrier is not insured under assembly insurance and there is no multiple insurance in addition to the carrier’s transport liability / liability insurance.
OLG Köln, Beschl. v. 20.01.2021 – 3 U 89/20
= Transportrecht 5 2021, S. 236 ff
1. An illness of the driver during a transport, which requires the driver to be taken to hospital, does not constitute inevitability in the case of a subsequent theft of a shipment in the sense of Art. 17 II para. 2 CMR if the driver can inform his employer before being picked up at the hospital.
2. Rather, it constitutes a qualified fault according to Art. 29 CMR to leave known valuable goods (branded textiles) unguarded in a public parking lot in the south of England.
OLG Düsseldorf, Urt. v. 13.05.2020 – 1-18 U 120/17
= Transportrecht 11/12 2020, S. 477 ff
1. According to § 236, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the AO, interest is to be paid on import duties to be reimbursed from the time they are pending.
2. The claim to interest is not excluded by Art. 116 (6) UZK if the lis pendens already existed before the applicability of this norm.
BFH, Urt. v. 22.10.2019 – Vll R 38/18
= Transportrecht 10 2020, S. 457 ff
1. If a framework agreement with an independent legal entity of the Deutsche Post AG group stipulates that another independent legal entity of the Deutsche Post AG group becomes the contracting partner for international parcel shipments, a corresponding representation of the person carrying out the international shipping shall apply independent legal person in any case with corresponding billing of the transport service as approved.
2. Although Art. 55 Universal Postal Treaty 1999, Art. 38 Universal Postal Treaty 2004 stipulates that the previous Universal Postal Treaty loses its validity with the ratification of the subsequent Universal Postal Treaty and the Federal Republic of Germany has not ratified the Universal Postal Treaty 2006 (and subsequently), the provisions apply of the Universal Postal Treaty and the Postal Parcel Convention in favor of Deutsche Post AG continue to apply.
OLG Köln, Urt. v. 19.03.2020 – 3 U 79/19
(see on this Czerenka in TransportR. 2020, p. 425 (attached to the decision))
= Transportrecht 10 2020, S. 118 ff
1. By sending the damage documents to the transport insurer, the policy holder simultaneously declares the assignment of his rights of recourse under the freight contract to the transport insurer.
2. By sending the damage documents to the insurer, the policy holder simultaneously declares the assignment of his claims from the freight contract to the insurer. Goods which cannot be delivered in the foreseeable future, e.g. due to a refusal of acceptance by the consignee, are deemed to be lost in accordance with Art. 17 para. 1 CMR.
3. leaving a consignment standing in a transhipment warehouse regularly gives rise to the accusation of qualified fault under Art. 29 CMR, as this can only be explained by inadequate entry/exit controls.
4. if the goods no longer have any objective value at all for the consignor from an economic point of view because the consignee has refused to accept the goods, the consignor may refuse to take back or further exploit the goods. lf the consignor is not in breach of his duty to minimise loss or damage, he is not liable.
OLG Stuttgart, Urt. v. 27.11.2019 – 3 U 239114
= Transportrecht 7|8 2020, S. 344 ff
Premature termination of the contract of carriage
1. The precondition of an obstacle to transport or delivery within the meaning of § 419 I 1 HGB is not that the agreed transport within the meaning of § 275 BGB has become impossible. Rather, it is sufficient that the transport cannot (any longer) be carried out in accordance with the contract.
2. Such an obstacle (1. above) exists if the carrier loses possession of the goods because the sub-carrier now carries the goods further on the basis of a contract of carriage concluded directly with the sender.
3. If the carriage is terminated prematurely due to an obstacle to carriage or delivery, the freight fiiluer retains the right to the full freight in accordance with § 420 III HGB (German Commercial Code) if the obstacle is attributable to the risk area of the consignor.
OLG Hamm, Urt. v. 14.02.2019 – 18 U 160/15
= Recht der Transportwirtschaft 9/2020, S. 338 ff
1. The clause of a transport order »Please make sure that there is sufficient insurance cover. (…) Only keep the truck in guarded parking lots, whose security correspond with the requirements of your insurance company. «It should be interpreted that parking in unguarded parking lots is not permitted.
2. The violation of the corresponding security requirements constitutes a qualified fault according to Art. 29 CMR.
Hans. OLG Bremen, Urt. v. 10.08.2018 – 2 U 7/18
= TransportR. 2 2020, S. 77 ff
In the case of a so-called incoming fraud, the sender does not have any claims against the carrier in accordance with Art. 17 ff. CMR even if the carrier cannot prove the delivery of the goods handed over to him for transportation to the freight contract recipient, since the sender is harmed in the same way would have occurred regardless of whether the goods were lost in the carrier’s custody or were delivered to the recipient.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 11.09.2019 – 5 U 196/18
= TransportR. 1 2020, S. 21 ff
Unlike in the case of a so-called wrong delivery, in which the carrier is deceived about the right to receive, in the event of an incoming fraud against the sender, delivery takes place in the sense of Art. 17 para. 1 CMR with handover to the person named by the sender, their identity may also be faked (in delimitation / specification to OLG Hamm, judgment of 26.08.2013 – 1-18 U 164/12 [= TranspR 2013, 431] and OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 05.06.2002 – 18 U 215/01)
OLG Koblenz, Urt. v. 09.05.2019 – 2 U 256/18
= TransportR. 1 2020, S. 24 ff
1. The contractual carrier has to allow the intentional embezzlement of the goods by a subcontractor commissioned via the freight exchange (Art. 3, 29 CMR).
2. The shipper shall not be accused of contributory negligence if he does not make any determinations concerning the registration number of the truck and the identity of the driver, at the place advised by the contracting carrier, at the time of collection of the goods and indicating to the shipper beforehand Carrier’s reference number appears.
Schleswig-Holsteinisches OLG, Urteil vom 18.12.2014 – 16 U 24/14
= TransportR. 4 2015, S. 157 ff
If the judgment of the first instance concerning the admissibility of the subsidiary intervention is admissible, an appeal against that decision is an immediate complaint.
OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 24.01.2019 – 6 U 277/15
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 460 ff
1. If a freight forwarder undertakes (even) to package the goods, works contract law will apply if it is not a subordinate, transport-related activity.
2. Defects of the packaging justify (then) claims according to § 634 No. 4 i.V.m. § 280 BGB, since upon detection of the defect (only) at the destination a supplementary performance of the contract is no longer possible and the purpose of the packaging has been omitted.
3. The handing over of the packaged goods to the following carrier does not justify acceptance i.S.d. § 640 BGB a.F.
OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 24.01.2019 – 6 U 62/16
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 456 ff
1. If an insurance broker establishes himself as an insurer when concluding an insurance contract, he must be treated as such.
2. Coverage under a liability insurance already exists with serious assertion of claims against the policyholder.
3. The permanent connection of a yacht to the shore power supply (during winter storage) is part of keeping or using a yacht.
OLG Celle, Urt. v. 13.12.2018 – 8 U 142/18
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 446 ff
1. The clause of a Freight Framework Agreement stating that loaded lorries are “to be parked there where adequate safety is ensured” shall be valid and interpreted as meaning that loaded lorries may be parked only where they are against access by thieves are effectively protected (eg fenced premises with access control, lockable buildings or garages).
2. The breach of corresponding security requirements and / or their failure to pass on grounds for a qualified fault according to § 435 HGB.
3. The objection of contributory negligence wg. Failed declaration of value can only be significant if the value of the shipment has been at least ten times the regular liability.
4. Inadmissible findings in a basic judgment (also) on the amount of the claim do not bind the appellate court (§ 318 ZPO), but are nevertheless not suitable to help an appeal to success.
OLG Celle Urt. v. 13.06.2019 – 11 U 6/19
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 428 ff
1. If the liability of the carrier meets § 606 sentence 2 HGB a.F. with the non-liability of the carrier according to § 608 (1) Nr. 5 HGB a.F. together, a distribution of liability is to be made by reference to the legal concept of the 254 BGB.
2. On the requirements of an organ fault according to § 660 (3) HGB a.F.
3. When calculating the maximum amount of liability pursuant to § 660 (1) HGB a.F., the damage to be compensated must first be determined, then a reduction in the obligation to pay compensation pursuant to § 254 BGB must be taken into account and then (only) the correction of the substitute limit used.
Hans. OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 08.11.2018 – 6 U 222/16
= TransportR. 2 2019, S. 84 ff
1. If a negative declaratory action has been filed in the Netherlands, a claim for damages (in terms of time) pursuant to Art. 30 (1) EuGWO shall be suspended.
2. Even if the claims of the defendants there had already been transferred to the plaintiff in the proceedings in Germany prior to filing the lawsuit in the Netherlands, the proceedings are related to each other.
With note of lawyer Benjamin Grimme
OLG Düsseldorf, Beschl. v. 09.10.2018 – 1-18 W 15/18 (n.rk.)
= TransportR. 3 2019, S. 140 ff
A freight carrier who asserts claims under § 414 (1) HGB because of damage to his truck to the sender is not to be blamed for contributory negligence under § 414 (2) HGB if the driver – despite expressed doubts about the safe / reliable loading / Packaging – trusts in the sender’s declaration that the goods are always packed / loaded the same way.
With note of lawyer Benjamin Grimme
Saarl. OLG, Urt . v. 08.02.2017 – 5 U 29/16 (rechtskräftig)
= TransportR. 11|12 2017, S. 453 ff
An insurer who relies on the fraudulent misrepresentation of his policyholder in order to justify his exemption from performance, has the intention to deceive of the policyholder.
However, the policyholder has a secondary burden of presentation; an intention to deceive is therefore to be assumed if the policyholder is too does not make a presentation in the relevant circumstances.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, Hinweisbeschl. v. 14.03.2018
und Zurückweisungsbeschl. v. 09.04.2018 – 3 U 178/16
= TransportR. 10 2018, S. 386 ff
The parking of a transport vehicle loaded with groupage in an unguarded commercial area justifies (even on weekends and even if the carrier is aware that there are easily deductible goods under the groupage) not easily the charge of a qualified fault.
OLG Nürnberg, Beschl. v. 14.08.2017 – 12 U 2204/15
= TransportR. 3 2018, S. 118 ff
The meticulous handling of the TLMV is essential to ward off significant risks to the health of consumers.
OLG Düsseldorf, Urt. v. 08.11.2017 – 1-18 U 173115
= TransportR. 5 2018, S. 197 ff
However, even in the case of an application for assessment, the applicant must state and prove that damage has been caused in the custody of the carrier.
Art. 3, 17, 29 CMR; § 264 Nr. 2 ZPO
Hanseatisches OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 05.04.2018 – 6 U 225/16
= TransportR. 7|8 2018, S. 303 ff
The overturning of a truck in strong winds without the occurrence of further circumstances justifies no qualified fault of the carrier.
Art. 29, 32 CMR
Hanseatisches OLG Hamburg, Beschl. v. 07.03.2018 – 6 U 40/16
= TransportR. 7|8 2018, S. 301 ff
Inevitability of damage to the goods in the event of a tire fire
OLG Hamm, Urt. v. 21.04.2016 – Az. 18 U 17/14
(§ 426 HGB, § 7 II StVG a.F., GüKG)
RdTW 3/2017, S. 111 ff
Road transport / CMR
Art. 17 Abs. 2 CMR
OLG Köln, Urt. v. 25.08.2016 – 3 U 28/16
Urteil vom 28.08.2016
Air transport contract
WA Art. 22, 25
OLG Köln, Urteil vom 15.2.2005 (22 U 145/04)
§§ 435, 452 HGB
OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 12.12.2001 – 18 U 79/01