Skip to main content

B-158168, JAN. 28, 1966, 45 COMP. GEN. 468

B-158168 Jan 28, 1966
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE QUESTION OF A SHIPPER'S LEGAL LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT CHARGES ON AN UNDELIVERED SHIPMENT IS UNSETTLED. 1966: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 29. THE MOVEMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WAS TO BE MADE FROM PLAINVIEW. THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE PICKED UP AT YOUR RESIDENCE AT PLAINVIEW AND CERTAIN ACCESSORIAL SERVICES SUCH AS PACKING. WERE PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER. THE GOODS WERE DESTROYED BY FIRE AT RONKONKOMA. YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF $389.76. AS THE MOVE WAS NOT COMPLETED. YOU RETAINED THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY TO HANDLE THE MATTER AND A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED WITH THE MID-ISLAND MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY WHEREBY THE CARRIER WAS PAID BY YOU THE AMOUNT OF $150 FOR SERVICES RENDERED.

View Decision

B-158168, JAN. 28, 1966, 45 COMP. GEN. 468

PROPERTY - PRIVATE - DAMAGE, LOSS, ETC. - CARRIER'S ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT - DELIVERY REQUIREMENT THE COMPROMISE AMOUNT PAID BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION ON UNDELIVERED HOUSEHOLD GOODS DESTROYED BY FIRE PRIOR TO THE ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1964, THAT HAD MOVED UNDER A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED TO HIM, NO LIABILITY EXISTING ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT FOR FREIGHT CHARGES, ABSENT DELIVERY, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE QUESTION OF A SHIPPER'S LEGAL LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT CHARGES ON AN UNDELIVERED SHIPMENT IS UNSETTLED, A CONCLUSION SUPPORTED BY THE CARRIER'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPROMISE OFFER, AND ALTHOUGH UNDER THE 1964 ACT, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED AND THE RESTRICTIONS IN AGENCY REGULATIONS, THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY ARISING INCIDENT TO THE SERVICES OF AN EMPLOYEE, THAT STATUTE DOES NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR A LOSS OCCURRING PRIOR TO ENACTMENT.

TO FRANK C. MASCARI, JANUARY 28, 1966:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 29, 1965, ACKNOWLEDGED DECEMBER 10, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE WHICH DENIED PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $150 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION. THE MOVEMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WAS TO BE MADE FROM PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK, TO SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND.

THE RECORD SHOWS YOU ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF THE MID-ISLAND MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY TO TRANSPORT YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS UNDER A COMMERCIAL BILL OF LADING. THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE PICKED UP AT YOUR RESIDENCE AT PLAINVIEW AND CERTAIN ACCESSORIAL SERVICES SUCH AS PACKING, CRATING, ETC., WERE PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER. EN ROUTE TO THEIR DESTINATION IN SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND, THE GOODS WERE DESTROYED BY FIRE AT RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK. YOU SAY THAT ON A COMMUTED RATE BASIS, IF THE EFFECTS HAD BEEN DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF $389.76. AS THE MOVE WAS NOT COMPLETED, THE CARRIER DEMANDED PAYMENT OF ONLY THE MINIMUM ICC RATE OF $233.56. YOU RETAINED THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY TO HANDLE THE MATTER AND A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED WITH THE MID-ISLAND MOVING AND STORAGE COMPANY WHEREBY THE CARRIER WAS PAID BY YOU THE AMOUNT OF $150 FOR SERVICES RENDERED.

THE QUESTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY ON A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR HOUSEHOLD GOODS LOST IN TRANSIT HAS BEEN BEFORE OUR OFFICE ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS. IN EACH INSTANCE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISCHARGE OF THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY TO THE OWNERS OF THE GOODS FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES FOR FREIGHT CHARGES SINCE THERE WAS NO DELIVERY OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT FOR THEIR CARRIAGE IN A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING. SEE NATIONAL TRAILER CONVOY, INC. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 51-64, DECIDED MAY 14, 1965, AND ALCOA STEAMSHIP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 421; ALSO, 6 COMP. GEN. 698; 22 ID. 1063.

THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK--- WHERE WE UNDERSTAND ANY SUIT BY THE CARRIER FOR FREIGHT CHARGES WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED--- IN CONSIDERING SHIPMENTS UNDER COMMERCIAL BILLS OF LADING APPEAR TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CASES IN WHICH THE GOODS REACH THE DESTINATION IN A DAMAGED CONDITION AND THOSE IN WHICH, BECAUSE OF LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF THE GOODS EN ROUTE, DELIVERY CANNOT BE EFFECTED AT ALL. IN THE LATTER SITUATION THE SHIPPER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE FREIGHT CHARGES. SEE DUNHAM V. BOWER, 77 N.Y. 76, CITED WITH APPROVAL IN HERBERT, INC. V. M. AND P. SCRAP IRON AND METAL CORP., 247 N.Y.S.2D 193 (1964).

IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE CONTROLLING LAW IN NEW YORK, YOUR LIABILITY FOR THE FREIGHT CHARGES UNDER THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE APPEARS AT LEAST TO BE DOUBTFUL. IN ANY EVENT WE BELIEVE YOU WILL AGREE THAT THE QUESTION OF THE SHIPPER'S LEGAL LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT CHARGES IN CASES SUCH AS YOURS IS, AT BEST, UNSETTLED. THE RECORD SUPPORTING YOUR CASE, INCLUDING THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE FACT OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CARRIER OF THE COMPROMISE OFFER IN SETTLEMENT OF ITS CLAIM FOR FREIGHT CHARGES, MUST BE VIEWED AS LENDING WEIGHT TO THAT CONCLUSION.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER IT INEQUITABLE THAT YOU SHOULD BEAR ANY PART OF THE BURDEN OF FREIGHT CHARGES IN ADDITION TO THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY YOU THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS. AS TO THE LATTER, IT LONG HAD BEEN THE RULE THAT THE MATTER OF LOSS OR DAMAGE TO AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD GOODS SUFFERED INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER OF STATION WAS A MATTER FOR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND THE CARRIER, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SHIPMENT MOVED ON GOVERNMENT OR COMMERCIAL BILL OF LADING. THIS WAS CHANGED BY PUBLIC LAW 88-558, APPROVED AUGUST 31, 1964, 78 STAT. 767, 31 U.S.C. 240 NOTE. SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS THEREIN AND RESTRICTIONS IN AGENCY REGULATIONS, THE GOVERNMENT NOW RECOGNIZES A LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY ARISING INCIDENT TO THE SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEE. THAT STATUTE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY AND SINCE YOUR LOSS OCCURRED PRIOR TO AUGUST 31, 1964, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO YOUR CASE.

THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE MAY ALLOW CLAIMS ONLY WHEN THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW AND FACTS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICABLE LAW IS CONTRARY TO THAT URGED BY YOU.

THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 29, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $150.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs