Fiche - Jurisprudence CMR

Numéro de la fiche : 42828

Pays : France

Thèmes : CMR (Transport routier international) Prescription (art. 32)

CMR (Transport routier international) Responsabilité du transporteur

Date de la décision : 16/03/2022

Objet :
Transport of 23,760 kg of prunes from France to the Netherlands -
Transport commission - Fraud - Total loss of the goods
1) Liability of the carrier (yes) - Application of the CMR - Obligation of result - Delivery to the contractually agreed place (no) - Delivery to another address on the order of the commission agent
2) Recourse action against the agent - Prescription (yes) - Annual deadline of articles L.133-6 of the Commercial Code and 32 of the CMR - Total loss of the goods - Start of the limitation period - Expiry of the deadline (yes)

Sommaire :
1) In application of the CMR, the carrier is bound by an obligation of result. He undertakes, by taking charge of the goods, to a result consisting in delivery to the agreed place and in the state in which he took charge of them. He is fully liable for loss and damage and only releases himself from liability by providing proof of an exceptional case. If the result is not achieved, the sender does not have to prove a fault on his part, he only needs to have the loss and the damage resulting therefrom recorded.
In this case, the carrier delivered the goods to another address, on the instructions of the freight forwarder, on the basis of a 2nd consignment note drawn up. This consignment note is however not opposable to the seller of the goods who does not appear there as sender and has not signed it. However, the mere fact that the carrier, bound by an obligation of result, has delivered the goods to an address different from that contractually agreed with the sender, characterizes its breach of its obligation of result and engages its responsibility, regardless of the existence of the sender's second unsigned consignment note.

2) The freight forwarder is justified in claiming the prescription of the action against him since the carrier had to call him in guarantee for an annual period expiring, in the most favorable hypothesis, on September 1, 2017 , so that its appeal in guarantee of November 23, 2017 is affected by the prescription.

Référence :
Cour d'appel de Bordeaux, 4e chambre civile,
16 Mars 2022
RG n° 19/03409
Sté Car Frost c/ SAS Compagnie des Pruneaux et a..

IDIT n°25278
Bulletin des Transports et de la Logistique n°3272 du 28 mars 2022 p.186

Observation :

Auteur :