Fiche - Jurisprudence CMR

Numéro de la fiche : 42856

Pays : France

Thèmes : CMR (Transport routier international)
    Responsabilité du transporteur Cas d'exonération (art. 17 et 18) Circonstances que le transporteur ne pouvait éviter (art. 17§2)

Date de la décision : 19/01/2023

Objet :
Transport of a wind turbine between France and Belgium – Transport under CMR consignment note – Exceptional transport under escort – Route recognized by the company responsible for the escort – Collision with an embankment by the transport vehicle – Damaged goods – Action by the freight forwarder against the carrier and the pilot car (escort) - Liability of the carrier (no) – Exoneration (yes) – Article 17-2 of the CMR – Unavoidable circumstances – Fault of the carrier (no) – Default of vigilance (no) – Prior precaution – Request for approval from the driver – Responsibility of the pilot car (yes) – Fault of the attendant – Instruction to stop the maneuver not given – Lack of visibility of the driver – Lack of guidance

Sommaire :
The carrier and more particularly the driver of the truck who had no visibility, had to get out of the truck in order to alert the driver of the pilot car to the special vigilance to be taken with this maneuver and to relaunch him several times by radio, while he was driving, to see if he could proceed. He did not move forward with the tractor until he had obtained the approval of the driver of the pilot car as to the possibility of manoeuvring, that he stopped when he heard a noise, that he noticed the damage to the blade when getting out of the vehicle.
Consequently, it is established that during the delivery of the wind turbine blade, on the site, the carrier was vigilant and took the precautions prior to the maneuver and that it was only because of the fault of the the escort company which did not give him the instruction to stop the maneuver that the blade hit the embankment and was damaged. It is also established that the carrier who had no visibility on the rear of the tractor, failing to be guided in the rules of the art, could not avoid the accident.
The proof being reported that the damage is caused by the exclusive fault of the escort company in circumstances unavoidable by the carrier, only the responsibility of the escort can be engaged.

Référence :
Cour d'appel d'Amiens
19 Janvier 2023
Répertoire Général : 20/04762
Sté SVPTE / SARL Rosec et a.

IDIT n°25434
Bulletin des Transports et de la Logistique n°3912 du 06 février 2023 p.75

Observation :

Auteur :