Faculté de Droit Direction des bibliothèques AVIS NOTICE L’auteur a autorisé l’Université The author has given the de Montréal à reproduire et Université de Montréal diffuser, en totalité ou en partie, permission to partially or par quelque moyen que ce soit completely reproduce and et sur quelque support que ce diffuse copies of this report or soit, et exclusivement à des fins thesis in any form or by any non lucratives d’enseignement means whatsoever for strictly et de recherche, des copies de non profit educational and ce mémoire ou de cette thèse. purposes. L’auteur et les coauteurs le cas The author and the co-authors, échéant, conservent néan- if applicable, nevertheless keep moins la liberté reconnue au the acknowledged rights of a titulaire du droit d’auteur de copyright holder to com- diffuser, éditer et utiliser mercially diffuse, edit and use commercialement ou non ce this work if they choose. Long travail. Les extraits substantiels excerpts from this work may not de celui-ci ne peuvent être be printed or reproduced in imprimés ou autrement another form without reproduits sans autorisation de permission from the author. l’auteur. L’Université ne sera The University is not aucunement responsable d’une responsible for commercial, utilisation commerciale, indus- industrial or other use of this trielle ou autre du mémoire ou report or thesis by a third party, de la thèse par un tiers, y including by professors. compris les professeurs. Université rU, de Montréal MULTIMODAL CARRIER LIABILITY IN THE U.S. AND CANADA: TOWARDS UNIFORMITY OF APPLICABLE RULES? (Tome I ofII) par Maria-Eleftheria Katsivela These de Doctorat effectuee en cotutelle Faculte de Droit de l'Universite de Montreal ET Faculte de Droit et de Sciences Politiques de l'Universite de Nantes These presentee ala Faculte des etudes superieures de l'Universite de Montreal en vue de l' obtention du grade de Docteur en Droit (LL. D.) et a la Faculte de Droit et de Sciences Politiques de l' Universite de Nantes en vue de l' obtention du grade de Docteur Septembre 2003 © Maria-Eleftheria Katsivela, 2003 \\. \ . .• </, ..,-.". ""'""""~"".",<. ""~""rf'" 7-', -\ (\' r -~~,;.. .. ,,-',' .... Universite de Montreal Faculte des etudes superieures et Universite de Nantes Faculte de Droit et de Sciences Politiques Cette these intitulee: MULTIMODAL CARRIER LIABILITY IN THE U.S. AND CANADA: TOWARDS UNIFORMITY OF APPLICABLE RULES? (Tome I of II) presentee et soutenue al' Universite de Montreal par: Maria-Eleftheria Katsivela a ete evaluee par un jury composee des personnes suivantes: President - rapporteur et membre dujury Directeur de recherche (Universite de Montreal) ;.P-=.r=-"G==u.....v..=L:;.;:e-=.fe;o.:b;;,...;v-=.r..=...e _ Codirecteur (Universite de Montreal) _ Directeur de Recherche (Universite de Nantes) Pr. Yves Tassel Codirecteur (Universite de Nantes) Membre du jury Examinateur exteme Representant du doyen de laFES t£unomia fittp://fwmoecumenicus.com/ioannitfis_soCon_eunomia.fitm lJ1iese tliings my spirit oills me teach tlie men ofYf.tnens: tfiat 'Dysnomia (odCa'UJ11tQ/(jng) orings countCess evilsfor tne city, out t£unomia (gooa Ca'UJ11tQ/(jng) orings oraer ana m.af<:?5 everytliing proper, oy enfoUing tfze unjust infetters, smootliing tliose tliings tliat are roug/i, stopping greea, sentencing Iiyoris to ooscurity mal<jng tnefCowers ofmischiefto wliitner, anastraiglitening croo~ajutfgments. It calms tne tfeeis ofarrogance anastops tfze oi£ious anger ofliarsli strife. 'llnaer its controc, af[tliings are proper anapruaence reigns liuman affairs ~OAQN -SOLON The Lawmaker ofAthens (died 559 B.C.) IV ABSTRACT From its inception, intermodal transport of goods has served trade, shippers and carriers, radically increasing transactions of goods worldwide. Multimodal carrier liability rules, however, have not evolved with the same rhythm and remain fragmented cross-modally and cross-country. This is also the case of the U.S. and Canada. The need to seek uniformity of applicable rules in these two countries led us to the comparative analysis of unimodal (land­ ocean) rules in these two countries. Guided by past failed initiatives (1980 United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport), the European intermodal reality, transport deregulation, pragmatism, fairness in the relation between the carrier and the shipper and Law & Economics principles, we used harmonization, codification and contractualism in advancing our suggestions on uniform multimodal carrier liability rules. Key words: intermodal, goods, pragmatism, fairness, Law & Economics, harmonization, codification, contactualism, Europe. RESUME Des sa naissance, Ie transport intermodal a servi Ie commerce, les chargeurs et les transporteurs, augmentant de fayon importante Ie transport des marchandises au niveau mondial. Pourtant, les regles de responsabilite du transporteur multimodal n'ont pas evolue au meme rythme et restent fragmentees atravers les modes et les pays. C'est aussi Ie cas des Etats-Unis et du Canada. Le besoin de chercher l'uniformite des regles applicables nous a conduit al'etude comparee des regles unimodales (terrestres-maritimes) dans ces deux pays. Guides par l'echec des initiatives passees (Convention de Nations Unies sur Ie Transport Multimodal International des Marchandises, 1980), la realite intermodale europeenne, la dereglementation du transport, Ie pragmatisme, la justice dans Ie rapport entre Ie transporteur et Ie chargeur et l'analyse economique de droit, nous avons utilise I'harmonisation, la codification et Ie contractualisme en vue d'avancer nos suggestions sur des regles de responsabilite uniformes du transporteur multimodal. Mots eMs: intermodal, marchandises, pragmatisme, justice, analyse economique de droit, harmonisation, codification, contractualisme, Europe. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract/Resume iv Table ofContents v Principle Abbreviations viii Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 1) The Core and Frame ofour Thesis (central question, object andgoals) 7 2) The Foundations ofour Thesis: Pragmatism, Fairness, Law & Economics 11 I Part: International, Regional and Domestic Views of Multimodal Carrier Liability: Lessons to be learnt 43 Chapter I: International and Regional Multimodal Carrier Liability Patterns: The 1980 UN Multimodal Convention and the EU Multimodal Carrier Liability Pattern 43 Section I: From the 1980 United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport Onwards 44 Par. 1: The 1980 United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport.. .45 A. The Genesis and Essence ofthe 1980 Multimodal Convention .47 B. Basis ofMT O. Liability Towards the Shipper 50 C. Limitation ofMT 0. Liability Towards the Shipper 54 Par. 2: The FIATA Multimodal Transport BOL (1992 MM or FBL) 60 A.1992 MM (FBL) General Liability Traits 61 B. 1992 MM (FBL) Liability Provisions 63 Par. 3: The 'Provisional Remedy' oflnsurance Companies in Multimodal Transport 68 A. Cargo, Liability andSelfInsurance 69 B. Do Insurance Companies Render Obsolete Uniformity Initiatives of Multimodal Carrier Liability? 77 C. Interplay ofRegulatory Policies on Carrier Liability and Insurance Premiums 81 Section II: The European Union (ED) Multimodal Carrier Liability Pattern 85 Par. 1: The Focus of the Common European Transportation Policy on Liberalization of Transport Services 86 A. Motor Transport ................•.........................................................................................................88 B. Rail Transport 89 C. International Ocean Carriage 92 Par. 2:Absence ofa Uniform European Multimodal Carrier Liability Regime 97 A. International Land Carriage in EUMember States (CMR and COTIF/CIM) 99 a) Formalist Regime 100 b) Vague Provisions 102 B. International Ocean Carriage in EUMember States (Visby Rules) 103 a) Formalist regime 104 b) Vague Provisions 104 Conclusion 113 Chapter II: U.S. and Canadian Transport Deregulation and its Effect on Multimodal Carrier Liability 114 Section I: U.S. and Canadian Land Transport Deregulation and its Effect on Carrier Liability 116 vi Par. 1: U.S 117 A. General Effects ofus. Motor and Rail Transport Deregulation 117 a) The Rules 117 b) The Practice 119 B. Contractual Uniformity ofus. Land Carrier Liabilityfollowing Deregulation 123 C. The Fair Opportunity Doctrine 127 Par. 2:Canada 132 A. General Effects ofCanadian Motor and Rail Transport Deregulation 133 a) Rail 133 b) Motor 135 B. Contractual or Statutory Uniformity ofCanadian Land Carrier Liability Provisions? 136 a) Rail Carriers-Contractual Uniformity 136 b) Motor Carriers-Statutory Uniformity 138 c) Incorporation by reference 145 Conclusion 146 Section II: U.S. and Canadian Ocean Transport Deregulation and its Effect on Carrier Liability 147 Conference Immunity-Intermodalism 147 Par. 1: U.S. and Canada 150 A. General Effects ofus. and Canadian Ocean Transport Deregulation 152 B. Statutory Uniformity ofus. andCanadian Ocean Carrier Liability 158 Par. 2: Fair Opportunity Doctrine (U.S.) and Sufficient Notice Test (Canada) 160 Conclusion 165 Part II: Multimodal Carrier Liability in the U.S. and Canada: Analysis and Uniformity Suggestions 167 Chapter I: Analysis ofMultimodal Carrier Liability in the U.S. and Canada 167 Section I: Basis ofMultimodal Carrier Liability in the U.S. and Canada 168 Us. Multimodal Uniformity Initiative (The draft COGSA 1998) 169 Paragraph 1: Overview of the Basis ofMultimodal Carrier Liability in the U.S. and Canada .....................................................................................................................................................