Commentary on Ruling Order No. 23395 of 30/08/2024: Presumption of Liability in Carriage Contracts
The recent Ruling Order No. 23395 of August 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important interpretation regarding the carrier's liability in carriage contracts. The central issue concerns the presumption of liability provided for by Article 1693 of the Civil Code and the circumstances that can exempt the carrier from such liability, particularly in cases of robbery.
The Carrier's Presumption of Liability
According to our legal system, specifically Article 1693 of the Civil Code, the carrier is presumed liable for the loss of goods transported. However, this liability can only be overcome by proving that the loss was caused by an act of God, meaning unforeseeable and unavoidable events. This principle also applies in the context of robberies, as highlighted in the ruling under commentary.
Presumption of liability under Art. 1693 of the Civil Code - Ground for exemption - Act of God - Robbery - Conditions - Factual scenario. In matters of carriage, the carrier's presumption of liability for the loss of transported goods, as per Art. 1693 of the Civil Code, can only be overcome by proving that the loss resulted from an act of God (which includes force majeure and the act of a third party), constituted by an unforeseeable and absolutely unavoidable event – based on a prudent assessment to be made with the qualified diligence of a professional carrier, taking into account all circumstances of the specific case – and cannot automatically be equated with a robbery if the circumstances of time and place in which the latter occurred were such as to render it foreseeable and avoidable. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's ruling that deemed the robbery suffered by the sub-carrier insufficient to constitute an act of God under Art. 1693 of the Civil Code, considering that it was perpetrated in the same location and with the same methods as a previous robbery suffered by a different sub-carrier, tasked with transporting another consignment of goods by the same carrier).
Analysis of the Factual Scenario
In the specific case, the Court confirmed that the robbery suffered by the sub-carrier could not be considered an act of God, as it occurred in the same location and with similar methods to a previous robbery. This element is crucial: if the circumstances of the robbery are foreseeable, the carrier cannot invoke an act of God as a cause for exemption from liability.
- The carrier's liability is presumed by law.
- An act of God must be an unforeseeable and unavoidable event.
- Robberies may not be considered acts of God if foreseeable.
Conclusions
The ruling of the Court of Cassation offers an important clarification on the issue of carrier liability in carriage contracts. It emphasizes that, in situations of robbery, the foreseeability of the event can preclude the possibility of invoking an act of God to exempt the carrier from liability. Therefore, carriers must pay particular attention to the circumstances under which transport operations take place to avoid incurring unintended liabilities.
