Fiche - Jurisprudence CMR

Numéro de la fiche : 42814

Pays : France

Thèmes : CMR (Transport routier international)
    Responsabilité du transporteur Cas d'exonération (art. 17 et 18) Défectuosité de l'emballage (art. 17§4-b)

CMR (Transport routier international)
    Responsabilité du transporteur Preuve du cas d'exonération (art. 18) Présomption de non-responsabilité (art. 18§2)

Date de la décision : 20/01/2022

Objet :
International transport of 31 pallets of baby food (including 29 pallets of glass jars) between Germany and France – Cascading subcontracting - Transport entrusted to a German who subcontracted it to a Spaniard who has itself subcontracted to a Portuguese – Reservations on delivery – Total destruction ordered by the customer of the pallets containing the glass jars – Liability action
1) Existence of damage (yes) – Article 17.1 of the CMR - Total loss (no) – Partial loss (yes)
2) Exoneration of the carrier (yes) – Preferred cause - Article 17.4 – Presumption - Article 18.2 - Defective packaging – Insufficient wrapping of the goods with multilayer film - Verification of the carrier (yes) – Stability of the goods apparent – Driving fault (no) – Sudden braking (no)

Sommaire :
1) The goods, consisting essentially of small glass jars of baby food, moved inside the trailer during road transport following sudden braking by the driver to avoid an accident. However, no pot was found broken before the goods were unloaded. On the other hand, at the time of unloading, several pots were broken due to the forward movement of the goods on the pallets on which they were resting (pallets with a larger surface than the packages). Thus, if the extent of the damage suffered is discussed (total or partial loss), the at least partial loss of the goods between the time of its taking over and that of its delivery is established.

2) Pursuant to Article 17.4 of the CMR, the carrier is exonerated from liability when the defect in the packaging (insufficient wrapping of the goods by multilayer film) and its inconspicuous nature for the carrier is established. Nor can he be held liable for a driving fault linked to sudden braking which does not appear to have been exceptional. This is corroborated by the fact that the rear right pallet load did not move.

Référence :
Cour d'Appel de Paris
Pôle 5- Chambre 5
20 janvier 2022
RG n°18/04910
Sté Transa Spedition GMBH / SAS Nestlé France et a.

IDIT n°25243

Observation :
Aimablement communiqué par Me Alexandre Gruber (LMT Avocats Paris)

Auteur :