- 74 -
Amendment." This Court, furthermore, adopted the
Supreme Court's language in Adams Express Co.:
That the legislation supersedes all the
regulations and policies of a particular
state upon the same subject results from its
general character. It embraces the subject
of the liability of the carrier under a bill
of lading which he must issue, and limits his
power to exempt himself by rule, regulation,
or contract.
To hold that the liability therein
declared may be increased or diminished by
local regulation or local views of public
policy will either make the provision less
than supreme, or indicate that Congress has
not shown a purpose to take possession of the
subject. The first would be unthinkable, and
the latter would be to revert to the
uncertainties and diversities of rulings
which led to the amendment. [Id. at 306-307
(citing Air Prods. & Chems. v. Illinois Cent.
Gulf R.R., 721 F.2d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 1983)
(quoting Adams Express Co. v. Croninger,
supra at 505-506)).]
Petitioner has successfully asserted that the Carmack
Amendment preempted State law which might otherwise govern a
shipper's claim for damage to packages. See Plaid Giraffe, Inc.
v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 94-1002-PFK (D. Kan., Sept. 26,
1994); Art Masters Associates, Ltd. v. United Parcel Serv., supra
at 228-229. Petitioner similarly defended itself in other
actions by shippers for recovery of lost or damaged shipments.33
33In United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Smith, 645 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1994), petitioner appealed from an action in which Glenn
Smith, the shipper, filed suit against petitioner regarding an
allegedly lost shipment. Mr. Smith sought to recover $995, the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011