Project of Public International Law

Topic: - An analysis of the United Nation Convention on Multimodal

Transportation of Goods

Submitted To: - Submitted By:-

Mis. Ritika Behl Sidharth Trehan,

Public International Law. A3221516028

VIII Semester.

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A research project of such great scope and precision could never have been possible without

great co-operation from all sides. Contributions of various people have resulted in this effort.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Ritika Behl without whose valuable

support and guidance, this project would have been impossible. I would like to thank the online

library for having put up with my persistent queries and having helped me out with the

voluminous materials needed for this project. I would also like to thank my seniors for having

guided me and culminate this acknowledgement by thanking my friends for having kept the

flame of competition burning, which spurred me on through the days.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. History of Multimodal Transport

III. Need for uniformity

a) Obsolete Conventions & Globalization
b) Confusion & Uncertainty
c) Liability of the third party has not been discussed

IV. Liability of the MTO and third parties

a) Liability of the MTO
b) Liability of the Third Party
c) Comparative analysis of Liability under different conventions

V. Causes of Failure:
a) Divergence in Liability Clause
b) Protection to Third Parties
c) Uncertainties in the Himalayan Clause
d) Commercial Interest of Shippers and Carriers
e) Interpretation by local & regional laws
f) Non Ratification of Hamburg Rules
g) Dependency on Hague-Visby Rules

VI. Bibliography

3
INTRODUCTION

Although the word multimodalism thus far has escaped inclusion in most dictionaries 1, it is a
term now widely used in the transportation industry to describe the concept of an integrated
system of through-transportation of goods over land and water. On its face, multimodalism
simply suggests transportation of a particular shipment of cargo by different modes of
transportation, which is certainly not a new development. 2 However, to those in the
transportation industry, the term embodies fundamental changes in the methods and patterns of
cargo transportation brought about by technological advances and by changed perceptions
transportation policy by legislators, regulators, and judges over the last twenty years.

Multimodalism is characterized by the integration and coordination of various modes of

transportation, commonly by means of a metal shipping container 3, providing point-of-origin to
point-of-destination transportation under a single set of shipping documents and based on a
single through-freight rate charged to the shipper, regardless of how many modes of
transportation are employed or how many carriers are involved. In the true multimodal
movement, the shipper need only deal with one party to arrange for the entire shipment.4

The concept of one carrier arranging for transportation through different modes either by
issuance of a "through" bill of lading or by coordinating trans-shipment between intermediate
points is not new.5 The significance of multimodalism is the explosive proliferation of
international point-of-origin to point-of-destination multimodal shipments arranged by a single
1
"Multimodal" is defined, in part, as "composed of several distinct types of activity." Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary (1986). Other terms such as "intermodalism" and "combined transport" are commonly
used in the transportation industry.
2
J. Mahoney, Intermodal Freight Transportation 1 (1985).

3
Tombari, Trends in Ocean borne Containerization and Its Implications for the U.S. Liner Industry, 10 J. MAR.
L. & COM, (1979) p. 311 - 313

4
Thomas R. Denniston & Carter T. Gunn, Liabilities of Multimodal Operators and Parties Other Than Carriers
and Shippers, 64 Tul. L. Rev. 517

5
Isler v. Luckenbach S.S. Co, 1927 AMC 768 & A. Knauth, The American Law Of Ocean Bills Of Lading,
(4th ed. 1953) pp.141-42, 171- 72.

4
carrier under one set of documents. From an operational standpoint, multimodalism may be
seen as merely a natural evolution arising from the basic transportation principle that unitization
of cargo leads to increased efficiency, speed of handling, and reduced costs. However,
multimodalism is distinguished by the application of the unitization principle in an integrated
manner to all modes of transportation including steamships, railroads, trucks, and airplanes, as
well as consolidation of all transportation arrangements in a single economic transaction.

The development of multimodalism has eroded the seemingly rigid boundaries that have
traditionally separated sea, rail, and truck transportation in this country both in a legal and
regulatory sense and, in most instances, in an operational sense. Such distinctions between
various segments of the transportation industry are now rapidly becoming blurred, and we are
moving into an age of total-transportation companies that offer integrated water, rail, and truck
service.

From a legal standpoint, the development of multimodalism is significant because the laws
governing the rights and liabilities of carriers and shippers were developed separately for each
mode of transportation during the decades when those transportation segments were viewed as
distinct.6 The technological advances associated with multimodalism have outpaced changes in
the law, often resulting in the application of different legal and regulatory regimes to a single
cargo movement.

6
Stephen Zamora, Carrier Liability for Damage or Loss to Cargo in International Transport, 23 Am J. Comp. L.
391, (1975), p. 403-45. Example- Warsaw Convention for regulating transportation by Air
5
HISTORY OF MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT

Maritime transport, similar to road, rail and air transport, uses the word "carrier" to describe the
party offering to move goods for a fee. It has not yet been determined at what stage were the
obligations imposed on the carrier which were entrusted to them for safe carriage. The duties of
"common carriage" were developed out of the English common law of bailment, which were
readily accepted by different countries.7

Before the nineteenth century, the all-purpose merchant operated as both ship owner and cargo
owner. Ships were owned in shares, often as little as 1/64, while cargoes were also owned in
shares, often by the same communal investors. Cargoes were often carried on speculation to
likely destinations where sales would be arranged by a shipboard agent for the cargo owners,
called the supercargo.8

In the nineteenth century, however, specialization changed everything. The all-purpose

merchant disappeared. Instead of the common interests of a company of merchant adventurers,
there emerged the opposing interests of the corporate ship owner and the cargo owner. All this
time the industry was governed by a public policy favoring "innocent" cargo owners. 9 By
contrast, private carriage was not governed by the same policy because of the presumption of
equality of bargaining power as between carrier and shipper.10

Multimodalism is the product of the widespread use of containers for the carriage of cargo and
of technological advances that permit their integrated use on various modes of transportation.11
7
F. Sanborn, Origins of the Early English Maritime and Commercial Law (1930). Retrieved from Richard W.
Palmer & Frank P. DeGiulio, Terminal Operations And Multimodal Carriage: History And Prognosis, 64 Tul. L.
Rev. (1989) 281, p. 289
8
A. Nevins, Sail On, The Story of the American Merchant Marine (1946), Retrived from Joseph C. Sweeney,
Crossing The Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses In Global Transport, 36 J. Mar. L. & Com. 155
p. 166

9
Liverpool & Great W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397 (1889).

10
Cons’l GrainCo. v. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth., 1993 AMC 1573
11
The concept of a container for the transportation of goods was first articulated by Dr. James Anderson in
England in 1801
6
 When the utilization of containers in ocean commerce was in its infancy, there was a
wide spread use of similar idea in the rail and road transport. Specially made containers, trucks
and rails were made to integrate the rail and road transport. However, the widespread use of
containers in multimodal transport between the road-rail-ship was made only after 1970.12

This was primarily due to coming of double-stack train and the delivery of fourth-
generation, post-Panamax containerships. The coming of such ships made the multimodal
transport easy, efficient, practical and affordable. These inventions helped because containers
were standardized and they could be easily attached to the other modes of transport and taken
anywhere.13

Hence, most authors have suggested that the advent of multimodal transportation on
global scale began with the development and standardization of the containers.

12
Richard W. Palmer & Frank P. DeGiulio, Terminal Operations And Multimodal Carriage: History And Prognosis,
64 Tul. L. Rev. (1989) 281, p. 285-293

13
T. Denniston, Double Stack Train Operations: History, Regulatory Concerns and Liability Aspects (presentation to
Pac. RIM Mar. L. Conf., Jan. 6, 1989). Retrieved from id at p. 288
7
NEED FOR UNIFORMITY

The following points explains the need for a uniform multimodal regime –

Obsolete Conventions & Globalization

International carriage of goods by rail is addressed by the Convention Concerning International

Carriage by Rail (COTIF). Air transport is governed by the Warsaw Convention, which is
adhered to by the United States as well. The growth of multimodalism has rendered many
provisions of these conventions obsolete. Moreover due to globalization there is an integrated
shipping industry which requires a new uniform set of rules. 14

Unlike other modes of transport sea carriage is governed by an outdated liability regime that has
failed to keep up with changes in the industry. The limited scope of the Hague Rules (and U.S.
COGSA) has left the sea carriage regime unable to deal efficiently with the increasing number
of claims involving multimodal bills of lading where the loss or damage occurs inland.15

14
Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Multimodal Carriage Of Goods, Admiralty & Mar. Law § 10-4 (4th ed.)

15
Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing The Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses In Global Transport, 36 J. Mar. L. & Com.
155

8
Confusion & Uncertainty

For the past several decades, parties to multimodal bills of lading have compensated by
including choice of law provisions (network clauses and Clauses Paramount), to govern the
rights and liabilities of the carrier and shipper outside the tackle-to-tackle period, and Himalaya
Clauses, to extend coverage to persons not otherwise covered by the regime. These clauses,
however, have been subject to different interpretations by different courts, as evidenced by the
Kirby case16; even the most carefully drafted bills of lading have not prevented the application
of state law on significant issues of liability and damages. The result has been low predictability
and high litigation costs.

That international multimodal transport is one means of facilitating the orderly expansion of
world trade. The increasing need to stimulate the development of smooth, economic and
efficient multimodal transport services adequate to the requirements of the trade concerned has
led to demand for uniform regime. The desirability of ensuring the orderly development of
international multimodal transport in the interest of all countries and the need to consider the
special problems of transit countries is another reason.17

LIABILITY OF THE MTO AND THIRD PARTIES

16
Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd. 2004 AMC 2705
17
www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/multimodal1980.html - these needs have been described in the text of the
convention itself.

9
Liability of the MTO
The Multimodal Convention is designed to introduce a uniform liability scheme. The liability of
the multimodal transport operator is therefore not dependent on establishing on which mode of
transport the loss or damage occurred. It adopts a simple scheme: the multimodal transport
operator is responsible for loss, damage or delay in delivery while the goods are in his control --
that is, from the time he takes them in his charge to the time of delivery. The basis of the
multimodal transport operator's liability is one of presumed fault or neglect.18 To escape liability
the burden is on him to show that he, his servants, agents, or any other person of whose services
he makes use for the performance of the multimodal transport contract took all measures that
could reasonably be required to avoid the occurrence and its consequences.19

The above simplicity in respect of liability does not mean that the Multimodal Convention is the
perfect solution to a complex situation. It has its fair share of problems, some of which are
highlighted here. It adopts a complex network scheme for compensation by drawing a
distinction between multimodal transport involving a sea trajectory and multimodal transport
not involving a sea trajectory. So where there is sea carriage liability, the amount is limited to
920 SDRs per package or other shipping unit or 2.75 SDRs per kilogram of gross weight of
goods lost or damaged. In the absence of a sea leg, liability is set at the maximum of 8.33 SDRs
per kilogram of gross weight of goods lost or damaged.

However, where loss or damage occurs on a mode of transport where application of a

mandatory national law, or international convention would provide a higher limit of liability
than that set in Article 18 of the Multimodal Convention, the multimodal transport operator's
liability amount will be calculated by reference in the international convention or mandatory
national law. The "limited network system of compensation" means that the issue of where the
damage or loss occurred is still pertinent, if not for the basis of liability, for calculation of
liability amounts.20
18
Art. 14 read with Agreed Principles of drafting clause (d) – that the liability of the multimodal transport operator
under this Convention should be based on the principle of presumed fault or neglect,
19
Indira Carr., International Multimodal Transport, Int. T.L.R. 1998, 4(3), 99, p. 109
20
Id, p. 110

10
The Convention provides that the shipper needs to look only at the MTO in the case of loss or
damage and that the MTO's liability will be subject to the provisions of the Convention;
however, the rights and responsibilities between the MTO and other carriers will continue to be
governed by the existing national or international treaties applicable to the particular unimodal
leg of transportation. Hence the MTO is directly responsible to shipper.21

Liability of the third Party

Previously law in regard to liability of third parties was embedded in the Himalaya Clause22.
However, in the beginning the Courts didn’t allow protection to the third party because of the
following reasons –
(1) to discourage negligence by making wrongdoers pay damages, and
(2) to protect those in need of goods or services from being overreached by others who have
power to drive hard bargains.23

However in the classic case of Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp 1959 AMC
87924 the Court held that the liability of the third parties can only be limited under the contract if
the parties had intended so and by no other means. This lead to the confusion among the courts
of US and thereby conflicting decisions were given.25

21
Supra note 14, p.353

Adler v. Dickinson (The Himalaya), [1955] 1 Q.B. 158, N. Healy, Carriage of Goods by Sea: Application of the
22

Himalaya Clause to Subdelegees of the Carrier; 2 Mar. Law. 91 (1977).

23
Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp 1955 AMC at 905.

24
Justice Whittaker wrote at p. 884-885: –
“nothing in these provisions to indicate that the contracting parties intended to limit the liability of stevedores or
other agents of the carrier for damages caused by their negligence Since they did not do so, it follows that the
provisions of the bill of lading did "not cut off remedy against the agent that did the wrongful act."”
25
Differences arose as to interpretation of “other persons” term used in the bill of landing - Mori Seiki USA, Inc.
v. M/V Shin Kashu Maru, 702 F.Supp. 613 1988 and Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Hyundai
Merchant Marine Co., Ltd., U.S.D.C., N.D. Ill., Case No. 86 C 4224 are cases which explain the conflicting
positions which the American Courts have taken.
11
However the law at this point has been enshrined in the case of Southern Railway Co. v. James
N. Kirby, Pty Ltd 26, the Court held in this case that the term “other persons” in a bill of landing
should be interpreted in a broad manner to include all the parties employed by the carrier.

The Multimodal Transport Convention provides if an action in respect of loss resulting from
loss of or damage to the goods or from delay in delivery is brought against the servant or agent
of the multimodal transport operator then such servant or agent proves must prove that he acted
within the scope of his employment, or against any other person of whose services he makes use
for the performance of the multimodal transport contract, if such other person proves that he
acted within the performance of the contract, the servant or agent or such other person shall be
entitled to avail himself of the defenses and limits of liability which the multimodal transport
operator is entitled to invoke under this Convention.27

Hence it can be concluded that the Himalaya Clause has also been extended to Multimodal
Convention. However, the act is very general in the applicability or non-applicability of the
clause and as a result the real problem of uncertainty has still not been resolved. The liability of
the MTO or his servants and agents will not be limited if it is found that there was he loss,
damage or delay in delivery resulted from an act or omission of the multimodal transport
operator done with the intent to cause such loss, damage or delay or recklessly and with
knowledge that such loss, damage or delay would probably result. 28 The same holds true for the
agents of the MTO.29

26
2004 AMC 2705
27
Art 20(2), Multimodal Transport Convention, 1980
28
Art 21(1), Multimodal Transport Convention, 1980
29
Art 22(2), Multimodal Transport Convention, 1980

12
Comparative analysis of Liability under different conventions30

Hague Rules Hague – Visby Hamburg Rules MTC, 1980

Rules

Sea leg-
920 SDRs per package
Raised the limit to or 2.75 SDRs per
Increased to 835
Carrier's liability to 667.67 SDRs or 2 kilogram of gross
SDRs (about
Limitation $500 per package SDRs per weight
$1,000) per Non-sea leg-
on liability kilogram of
package or 2.5 Maximum of 8.33
goods, whichever
SDRs per kilogram
is higher SDRs per kilogram
of gross weight31

Burden of No Presumption No Presumption Refutable Rebuttable

Proof of negligence of negligence presumption of presumption of
negligence negligence
Presence of Presence of Absence of Absence of
Defenses Nautical Defense Nautical Defense Nautical Defense Nautical Defense
& 17 separate & 17 separate & 3 general & a requirement of
defenses defenses clauses of defense proving reasonable
precautions

30
Compiled from bare text of the conventions & Michael E. Crowley, The Limited Scope of the Cargo Liability
Regime Covering Carriage of Goods by Sea: The Multimodal Problem 79 Tul. L. Rev. 1461 (2005), p. 1470
31
However, where local laws or convention are applicable there the liability will not be limited by Art 18.
13
CAUSES OF FAILURE

Although a Uniform Regulation on Multimodal Transport is need of the hour but till date the
global community has not been able to reach consensus on a single convention or regulation. In
1980, the United Nation through one of its organization had tried to come up with a practical
solution to all the problems of the Multimodal Transport, but was not accepted by many
countries and commercial bodies. The reasons for its failure have been summarized below.

Divergence in Liability Clause

Wide divergences in liability regimes were noted in the study, ranging from a strict and
unlimited liability to total exculpation and non-liability in different countries. 32 Hence, the
complex and common liability system proposed by the Multimodal Convention was not
accepted by majority of the countries. This problem was further aggravated by omitting the
defense of negligence for the ocean carriers; as a result both the carriers and their insurers were
highly against this convention.33

Protection to Third Parties

The various international agreements concerning carriage of goods or multimodal transport

have different approach towards the protection of third parties under the Multimodal Contract.
The Visby Amendments appears less attractive from the stevedore/terminal operator's
standpoint than do the provisions of the Hamburg Rules. The latter provides for broader
availability of carrier defenses to third parties, while the former does not allow for extension of
carrier defenses to independent contractors.34 The United Nations Convention on International

32
Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing The Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses In Global Transport, 36 J. Mar. L. & Com.
155, p. 196
33
Art 21(2), Multimodal Transport Convention, 1980
34
Compare Article 3.2 of the Visby Amendments (Protocol Amending the International Convention for the
Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading), (6th ed. 1989) at 1-27 with Article 7.2 of the
Hamburg Rules, id. at 1-37.

14
Multimodal Transport of Goods does not provide for broad protection of third parties under the
contract of carriage.35

Uncertainties in the Himalayan Clause

As explained before the liability of the third party has still not been crystallized into a fixed rule.
Different courts have given different interpretations to the Himalaya Clause which has also been
incorporated into the Multimodal Transport Convention and thereby same problem continues to
exist.36

Commercial Interest of Shippers and Carriers

There is dispute between MTC and Hague-Visby

 Carriers maintain that the Hague-Visby approach is appropriate, noting that most of the
seventeen defenses are implicitly included in the Multimodal Transport Convention anyway.
However, carriers feel that rephrasing of multiple defenses into the generalized defenses is a
giant step backward in legal process. Carriers view Multimodal Transport Convention as only
creating vagueness and inconsistency in the law on their available defenses.37

 Moreover, shippers feel there is no justification for the "nautical fault" defense. Shippers
argue that in the contemporary times of advanced telecommunications, where shipowners can
maintain constant verbal and visual contact with its captains and crews, the historic rationale of
the shipowner's inability to control its vessel at sea no longer exists. This defense, the shippers
maintain, has succeeded in permitting carriers to evade liability on the high seas.38

 Carriers state that the Multimodal Transport Convention is inconsistent, unclear and
confusing, and replacing The Hague Rules will create another half century of litigation to
35
Article 20.2, United Nations Convention on International Multimodal

36
Supra Note 26
37
Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Merchant Marine of the House Comm. on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992)

38
Samuel Robert Mandelbaum, International Ocean Shipping And Risk Allocation For Cargo Loss, Damage and
Delay: A U.S. Approach To COGSA, Hague-Visby, Hamburg And The Multimodal Rules. 5 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y
1, p. 28

15
interpret the new treaty. To the contrary, shippers maintain that the Multimodal Transport
Convention will result in less litigation due to removal of the nautical fault defenses, the
introduction of the "presumed fault" standard, and increased time limits. The MTO’s liability
based on refutable presumption fault was one of the major reasons of its rejection.

Interpretation by local & regional laws

Although the model rules offer some solution to the multimodal problem, through incorporation
into private contracts, their usefulness is limited in the sense that private contracts remain
subject to interpretation by various national and regional laws, making harmony and uniformity
nearly impossible. They simply lack the force of an international convention.39

Non Ratification of Hamburg Rules

The Multimodal Transport Act, 1993 and COGSA are based on Hague-Visby Rules which are
significantly different from the Hamburg Rules. 40 Moreover, the United Nation Convention on
Multimodal Transport is on similar lines as that of Humburg Rules.41 Hence from practical
viewpoint42, the Hamburg Rules must be in force before the Multimodal Convention is
accepted.43 Even if the Hamburg Rules are accepted, however, there may be many other
objections, including the problem that the UNCTAD convention is developing too cautiously in
its supersession44 of the various existing international conventions, thereby creating too much
uncertainty. The primary reason why both haven’t been accepted is because the liability system
enshrined by them is not in the interest of the commercial bodies.

SUGGESTIONS

39
Proposed New United States Senate COGSA: The Disintegration of Uniform International Carriage of Goods by
Sea Law, 30 J. Mar. L. & Com. 595, (1999). Pp. 606-14.
40
Donovan, The Hamburg Rules: Why a New Convention on Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4 MAR. LAW. 1, 2
(1979).

41
Robert Rendell, Report on Hague Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, 22 INT'L LAW. 246 (1988), p. 250
42
Rolf Herber, The European Legal Experience With Multimodalism, (1989) 64 Tul. L. Rev. 611, p. 622-623
43
Hamburg Rules provide for groundwork for the Multimodal Transport Convention, moreover as opposed to
Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules are almost same as MTC. Multimodal Convention becomes mandatory upon
ratification of a certain number of states and "basically adopts the same approach as the Hamburg Rules.", Supra
Note 39, p.250
44
Supra note 25, p. 622

16
 1. It would serve the future international trade community to promote a new legal regime
upon the framework of the Hague-Visby Amendment with its SDR Protocol. As most of
the industrialized world and trading nations have gravitated towards Hague-Visby, there
are strong considerations for proceeding in that direction.

2. A new proposal should be made to attempt harmonization of Hague-Visby and

Hamburg. As stated before, there is dependency on Hague-Visby rules and counties are
not willing to switch to new set of rules. The new proposal should be made in such a
way that it appeals to majority of the countries to maintain the uniformity in the law
followed by trading partners. Moreover, the shippers45 and carriers46 interest should be
balanced by the new proposal.

3. The uncertainties created by Art 22(2), Multimodal Transport Convention, 1980 should
be removed by having a detailed provision for liability of the agents and servants. The
provision must clearly lay down - under what circumstances can the third party get
protection under the multimodal contract. Moreover, the presumption of their fault has
also not been accepted readily.

45
In support of Hamburg Rules

46
In support of Hague-Visby Rules
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Papers, Articles & Presentations cited

1. Donovan, The Hamburg Rules: Why a New Convention on Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4
MAR. LAW. 1, 2 (1979).

2. Indira Carr., International Multimodal Transport, Int. T.L.R. 1998, 4(3), 99

3. Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing The Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses In Global

Transport, 36 J. Mar. L. & Com. 155

4. Knauth, The American Law Of Ocean Bills Of Lading, (4th ed. 1953) 142

5. Michael E. Crowley, The Limited Scope of the Cargo Liability Regime Covering
Carriage of Goods by Sea: The Multimodal Problem (2005) 79 Tul. L. Rev. 1461

6. N. Healy, Carriage of Goods by Sea: Application of the Himalaya Clause to

Subdelegees of the Carrier; 2 Mar. Law. 91 (1977).

7. Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Merchant Marine of the House Comm. on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992)

8. Proposed New United States Senate COGSA: The Disintegration of Uniform

International Carriage of Goods by Sea Law, 30 J. Mar. L. & Com. 595, (1999).

9. Richard W. Palmer & Frank P. DeGiulio, Terminal Operations And Multimodal

Carriage: History And Prognosis, (1989) 64 Tul. L. Rev. 281

10. Robert Rendell, Report on Hague Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, 22 INT'L LAW. 246
(1988)

11. Rolf Herber, The European Legal Experience With Multimodalism, (1989) 64 Tul. L.
Rev. 611

12. Samuel Robert Mandelbaum, International Ocean Shipping And Risk Allocation For
Cargo Loss, Damage nd Delay: A U.S. Approach To COGSA, Hague-Visby, Hamburg
And The Multimodal Rules. 5 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 1

13. Stephen Zamora, Carrier Liability for Damage or Loss to Cargo in International
Transport, 23 Am J. Comp. L. 391, (1975)

14. T. Denniston, Double Stack Train Operations: History, Regulatory Concerns and
Liability Aspects (presentation to Pac. RIM Mar. L. Conf., Jan. 6, 1989).

18
15. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Multimodal Carriage Of Goods, Admiralty & Mar. Law § 10-4
(4th ed.)

16. Thomas R. Denniston & Carter T. Gunn, Liabilities of Multimodal Operators and
Parties Other Than Carriers and Shippers, (1989) 64 Tul. L. Rev. 517

17. Tombari, Trends in Ocean borne Containerization and Its Implications for the U.S.
Liner Industry, 10 J. MAR. L. & COM, (1979) 311

Cases Cited

1. Mori Seiki USA, Inc. v. M/V Shin Kashu Maru, 702 F.Supp. 613 1988

2. Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.,
U.S.D.C., N.D. Ill., Case No. 86 C 4224

3. Isler v. Luckenbach S.S. Co, 1927 AMC 768

4. Liverpool & Great W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397 (1889)

5. Cons’l GrainCo. v. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth., 1993 AMC 1573

6. Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd. 2004 AMC 2705

7. Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. 1993 AMC 2842

8. Nat'l Res. Trading, Inc. v. Trans Freight Lines, 1986 AMC 844

9. Adler v. Dickinson (The Himalaya), [1955] 1 Q.B. 158

Webpage visited

1. www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/multimodal1980.html (Retrieved on August 10,

2006)

19