Total Quality Logistics Carrier Agreement

8 The fundamental problem with Le`s argument is that its legal roots stem from cases relating to a federal statute of 1906 known as the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C§ 14706 et seq. Carmack Amendment is a federal law that transfers responsibility for loss, damage or violation of goods transported in intergovernmental trade and anticipates state regulation on carriers` liability in this area. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.P. 491, 505, 33 p.Ct. 148 (1913); Read-Rite Corp. v. Burlington Air Express, Ltd., 186 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 1999).

The amendment assigns responsibility for loss of or damage to such goods, pursuant to 49 U.S.C§ 14706(a) to carriers, but not to brokers. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies v.H.A. Transp. Systems, Inc., 243 F.Supp.2d 1064 (C.D.Cal. 2002). As a result, much of the case law relating to the addition of Carmack naturally focuses on whether a given unit was a « carrier » or a « broker ». We do not believe that the case law regarding lost or damaged goods, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, is relevant to general questions in Oklahoma. Another transportation media company, freightbrokerlive.com, also spoke with former employees who had collected the same bandwidth charge, saying not only that they did not receive layoff packages, but that they also had competition bans, debauchery bans, and/or confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from working for TQL`s competitors. 23 The main de facto discrepancy between the `controls` carried out at Sperl and the control in that case is clear. In addition, at least eight of the control bodies identified by Mr.

Corsi are clear common-sense requirements that any shipper of refrigerated products would need before entrusting cargo to a carrier or broker. In Scheinman v. Martin`s Bulk Milk Serv., Inc., 09 C 5340, 2013 WL 6467525 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2013), the judge held that the requirements for appeal reports on a driver`s progress do not mean that the shipper is able to direct or control the driver`s actions when pulling the assigned cargo. It also reflects simple common sense. Another case in Illinois is Wilson-McCray v.

Stokes, 01 C 1929, 2003 WL 22901569, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2003) finds that a shipper « 6 The essence of Le`s first assertion is that TQL is legally the `holder` of the strawberry cargo, not a freight broker, and is therefore responsible for the actions of driver Singh on a higher basis. The centerpiece of the « Carrier » argument is a series of statements from different courts that say that any entity that commits to delivering cargo is a « carrier » under federal law. 56 Moreover, in the construction of Le, the degree of control over the selection of the driver on which it insists, in order to avoid the responsibility of a negligent hiring theory, probably renders a responsibility for an agency theory because of excessive control. Accepting this construction would constitute a judicial overhaul of the law in order to create a general liability of brokers for the acts of carriers. This does not reflect the legislation in force or the obvious intention of the legislators concerned.

After deregulation, road hauliers developed the practice of providing equipment and services to independent owners/operators. See Prestige Case. Courage of Co. v. Michigan. In what makes me feel good. Co., 99 F.3d 1340, 1342 (6th cir. 1996). In the past, airlines have used such leasing agreements « to avoid safety rules for equipment and drivers, » shifting the burden of complying with the rules onto the « independent » owner/operator.

. . .