Successive Carriage. Who is liable under the transport law – CMR Convention?

Where an international carriage of goods is performed under a single contract, but its physical execution is carried out successively by several road carriers, the transport law regime established by the CMR Convention imposes the principle that each carrier involved in the chain bears liability for the performance of the carriage as a whole.

Accordingly, every carrier entering the succession acquires the status of contractual party at the moment it takes over the goods and the consignment note, under the conditions set out in that transport document. The carrier who receives the goods after the initial carrier becomes, by virtue of that act of receipt, directly bound towards both the sender and the consignee, assuming the obligations and liability associated with the entire carriage, and not merely with the segment physically carried out by that carrier.

From the perspective of transport law, this legal mechanism of successive takeover is reinforced by the obligation of each succeeding carrier to issue to the preceding carrier a dated and signed receipt confirming the physical transfer of the goods. Furthermore, each successive carrier must record its name and address on the second copy of the consignment note, thereby ensuring continuity in the legal traceability of the carriage and enabling the clear identification of every professional involved. Where discrepancies, damage, or any reservations exist regarding the condition of the goods or their packaging, the carrier must enter such reservations both on the consignment note and on the receipt, in accordance with the rules and effects applicable to reservations made upon initial takeover of the goods.

The legal relations between successive carriers are governed correspondingly by the evidentiary rules regarding the probative value of the consignment note, which retains its legal force as full proof both of the existence and the content of the contract of carriage and of the takeover of the goods and their condition at the moment of transfer between carriers.

In matters concerning liability for loss, damage, or delay in delivery, the procedural framework established by the CMR Convention defines the circle of parties against whom a judicial action may be brought. Thus, the person entitled to claim may direct the action, adanly against the first contractual carrier, the last carrier in the chain, or the carrier who executed the segment of carriage during which the event causing the loss, damage, or delay occurred.

Within the framework of transport law, the carrier who has compensated the damage under the conditions laid down by the CMR Convention acquires, by operation of law, a right of recourse against all carriers involved in the performance of the carriage. This right covers the amount paid as compensation, together with any interest and expenses incurred. The exercise of recourse is carried out in accordance with the special rules established by the Convention, which create an internal mechanism for allocating liability among successive carriers.

Accordingly, the carrier whose conduct caused the damage bears the exclusive obligation to cover the entire compensation, whether paid by that carrier or by another carrier in the chain of performance. Where the damage results from the cumulative conduct of two or more carriers, each carrier’s contribution is determined proportionally to its degree of responsibility, as established in light of the factual circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the loss.

If the respective degrees of fault cannot be determined, the internal distribution of compensation is made according to an objective criterion, namely in proportion to each carrier’s share of the remuneration for the carriage.

Furthermore, when the responsible carrier cannot be identified, the Convention provides for an equalised distribution of liability, applying the same mechanism used in cases where the respective degrees of responsibility cannot be assessed. In such circumstances, the entire compensation is apportioned among all carriers who participated in the performance of the contract, in proportion to their share of the remuneration, thereby ensuring an equitable allocation of the risk in the absence of an identifiable fault.

In the event that one of the carriers involved in the successive carriage is insolvent, the portion of the compensation attributable to that carrier—yet unpaid—is redistributed among the remaining solvent carriers. This redistribution follows the same proportionality criterion based on each carrier’s share of the remuneration, the CMR Convention thereby establishing an internal compensatory mechanism aimed at maintaining contractual balance and preventing the obstruction of the recourse process.

According to Article 37 of the CMR Convention:  “The carrier who has paid compensation under the provisions of this Convention shall be entitled to recover the amount paid, together with interest and expenses incurred, from the carriers who have participated in the performance of the contract of carriage in accordance with the following rules:

(a) the carrier by whose act the loss, damage or delay was caused shall bear the whole of the compensation, whether paid by himself or by another carrier;

(b) where the loss, damage or delay was caused by the acts of two or more carriers, each shall pay an amount proportional to his share of responsibility; if the shares of responsibility cannot be assessed, each shall be liable in proportion to his share of the remuneration for the carriage;

(c) if it cannot be established which carrier is responsible for the loss, damage or delay, the compensation shall be apportioned among all the carriers in proportion to the remuneration they have received.”

According to Article 38 of the CMR Convention: “If one of the carriers is insolvent, the portion of the compensation which he is liable to pay but has not paid shall be apportioned among the other carriers in proportion to their share of the remuneration.”

Furthermore, under the provisions of Article 39, the carrier against whom a recourse action is brought pursuant to Articles 37 and 38 may not challenge the validity of the payment made by the carrier exercising the right of recourse, where the compensation has been established by a final court judgment. This limitation applies, however, only insofar as the carrier concerned was duly informed of the proceedings and had the opportunity to intervene, thereby ensuring full compliance with the principle of adversarial procedure, a cornerstone of transport law litigation.

The exercise of the right of recourse may take place before the competent court of the state in which any of the carriers involved has its habitual residence, principal place of business, or a branch or agency through which the contract of carriage was concluded. The CMR Convention thus allows the carrier bringing the recourse claim to initiate a single action against all carriers involved, ensuring procedural coherence and avoiding the fragmentation of disputes—a consideration of particular importance in international transport law.

Judgments rendered in recourse actions are subject, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of Article 31 paragraphs (3) and (4), regarding cross-border recognition and enforcement within the contracting states. Moreover, the limitation periods applicable to recourse claims are those set out in Article 32 of the Convention, with the specific rule that the limitation period begins either on the date of the final judgment establishing the compensation payable under the Convention, or, in the absence of such a judgment, on the date on which payment was actually made by the carrier subsequently exercising recourse.

Article 40 affirms the contractual freedom of carriers to agree on derogations from the recourse rules established in Articles 37 and 38. This possibility reflects the supplementary nature of the Convention’s internal liability-distribution mechanism, allowing the parties to adapt these rules to the commercial realities and operational arrangements specific to successive carriage.

Practical Example: 

A company in Germany ships 20 pallets of electronic equipment to a consignee in Romania. The carriage is performed under a single contract of carriage, and the CMR consignment note is issued at departure. Three successive road carriers are involved in carrying out the transport:

• Carrier A (Germany) – takes over the goods from the sender, issues the CMR, and performs the Germany–Austria segment.
• Carrier B (Austria) – takes over the goods, signs the receipt of delivery, and performs the Austria–Hungary segment.
• Carrier C (Hungary/Romania) – takes over the goods in Hungary and completes the transport to the consignee.

Each of the three carriers becomes a party to the same contract of carriage by the mere act of taking over the goods and the consignment note, thereby assuming liability for the entire carriage pursuant to Article 34 CMR.

Occurrence of the Damage

In Hungary, during the segment performed by Carrier C, the goods suffer damage caused by improper handling at a trans-loading ramp. Upon arrival in Romania, the consignee notes the damage and files a claim. Under Articles 36–37 CMR, the liability claim may be brought against:

• Carrier A (the first carrier),
• Carrier C (the last carrier),
• or directly against the carrier who caused the damage (in this case, C).

The consignee files the action against Carrier C, who is ordered by a final court judgment to pay EUR 10,000 in compensation.

Right of Recourse

After paying the compensation, Carrier C exercises its right of recourse against the successive carriers.

Scenario 1: The responsible carrier is identified : If the investigation clearly establishes that Carrier C alone caused the damage, Article 37(a) CMR requires that Carrier C bear the entire loss. In this situation, no recourse exists against A or B.

Scenario 2: The responsible carrier cannot be determined: For illustration, assume that the investigation cannot determine whether the damage occurred during handling in Hungary or during the prior trans-loading performed by Carrier B. The cause of the damage is therefore indeterminate.

In this case, the EUR 10,000 compensation is allocated proportionally to each carrier’s share of the remuneration, under Article 37(b)–(c) CMR.

Total remuneration for the entire carriage: EUR 6,000, allocated as follows:

• Carrier A: EUR 2,000
• Carrier B: EUR 2,000
• Carrier C: EUR 2,000

Applying the proportionality rule, each carrier bears one-third, meaning EUR 3,333.

Since Carrier C paid the entire EUR 10,000, it is entitled to recover:

• EUR 3,333 from Carrier A
• EUR 3,333 from Carrier B

Insolvency of One Carrier

Assume Carrier B is insolvent. Under Article 38 CMR, B’s share (EUR 3,333) must be redistributed among the remaining carriers in proportion to their remuneration. Because A and C each received remuneration of EUR 2,000, the amount is divided equally:

• Carrier A must additionally bear EUR 1,666.50
• Carrier C bears the same amount
  

Final recourse outcome:

• Carrier A pays Carrier C: EUR 3,333 + 1,666.50 = 4,999.50
• Carrier C ultimately remains with a definitive loss of EUR 1,666.50 due to B’s insolvence

The application of the CMR Convention, particularly regarding liability for loss, damage, or delay and the distribution of recourse among successive carriers, requires specialised legal analysis by a transport lawyer. Blaj Law has a dedicated transport law department providing legal assistance and representation in disputes concerning compensation and carrier liability, including complex cases involving successive carriers and multi-stage carriage under the CMR regime.