CMR: Carrier liability for drivers and subcontractors under Article 3

Under Article 3 CMR, the carrier is liable for the acts and omissions of its servants and of all other persons whose services it uses for the carriage, as if they were its own acts and omissions.

The provision answers an attribution question: whose conduct is attributed to the carrier in the CMR relationship? The decisive point is whether the person used for the carriage acted in the exercise of their functions while performing the carriage. The rule covers conduct and omissions.

Article 3 CMR is therefore an important starting point, but it is not a complete assessment of every transport damage claim. This article separates drivers, other persons used for the carriage, the functional connection with the carriage, and the records that make those facts traceable.

Article 3 CMR attributes acts and omissions of two groups: the carrier’s servants and all other persons whose services the carrier uses for the performance of the carriage. If that person acts in the exercise of their functions, the carrier is liable in the CMR relationship as if the conduct were its own.

The rule therefore turns on the specific activity. The person, the assignment, the transport function and the alleged event must be connected. The result should not be inferred only from a business label or from the fact that the goods arrived damaged.

Both active conduct and an omission are covered. The file should therefore state precisely what the person did, failed to do or was allegedly required to do at a particular point in the carriage.

A driver may act as the carrier’s servant or as another person whose services the carrier uses for the carriage. For Article 3 CMR, the legal label alone is not decisive. The question remains whether the driver acted in the exercise of the relevant function while performing the carriage.

The transport order, assigned route or task, acceptance of the goods, delivery and alleged event belong in one chronology. Where an omission is alleged, the file should also show what act was expected and which record supports that expectation.

Article 3 CMR concerns attribution to the carrier. Whether the driver also has personal liability, or whether another claim or legal basis applies, is a separate question and is not answered automatically by this provision.

The wording of Article 3 CMR is not limited to employees. It also covers other persons whose services the carrier uses for the performance of the carriage. If another carrier or business is involved, its actual role in the transport must therefore be established.

Begin by identifying what service the other business performed in this carriage. Separate the carrier’s instruction, the actual performance, the persons used and the conduct that is said to be attributable. Treating every business partner as a person used under Article 3 CMR without examining the facts is too broad.

Record the transfer of the instruction, the agreed task, the handover of the goods, communications during the transport and delivery. This shows whether the alleged event was connected with the performance of the carriage.

Article 3 CMR requires the servant or other person used to act in the exercise of their functions. Attribution therefore depends on a functional connection with the performance of the carriage. Mere timing close to a transport is not enough as a description of the facts.

Bring together the assignment, instructions, place, time and purpose of the event. For a driver, the specific transport leg may be relevant. For another business, the task taken on and its integration into the carriage may matter. These examples do not replace an assessment of the individual case.

If the alleged event lies entirely outside the assigned function, attribution under Article 3 CMR cannot be resolved with a label alone. The file must show why a connection with the performance of the carriage nevertheless exists or why it does not.

Article 3 CMR is an attribution rule. It explains when the conduct of a person used for the carriage is attributed to the carrier as its own conduct. It does not replace the full assessment of whether the particular carriage falls within the CMR.

Article 3 CMR also does not by itself answer every question about the damage, amount of the claim, reservations, limitation or the competent court. Each question requires its own factual basis and the applicable provisions.

This separation matters when preparing the transport file. First assess attribution of the act or omission. Then assess damage, claim, defences and other legal questions separately. This article does not examine recourse between carriers or a general claim of personal driver liability.

For an initial overview, assemble the transport order, CMR consignment note, forwarding or subcontracting instructions and handover records. Depending on the event, messages, instructions, delivery receipts, damage notices, photographs and internal incident notes may add relevant detail.

Put the records in a chronology. For each part of the carriage, show who was used, which function was taken on, when the goods were handed over and what act or omission is alleged. State whether a document directly records the event or merely contains a later account.

Keep contradictions visible. A sound file separates original records, messages, witness accounts and later legal assessments. This makes it possible to test whether the functional connection required by Article 3 CMR is actually supported.

The guide to consignment notes and documentation and the transport damage checklist support an orderly transport file.

Checking only the business label: Attribution depends on the actual use in the carriage and not only on the label employee, subcontracted carrier or service provider.

Equating the driver with the carrier: Article 3 CMR concerns attribution to the carrier. Any personal liability of the driver must be assessed separately.

Asserting an omission without detail: The file should show which function was expected and when it was allegedly not performed.

Attributing every task of a business partner: A business may perform different tasks. Its specific integration into the performance of the carriage must be established.

Skipping the functional connection: Timing close to the transport does not automatically show that the person acted in the exercise of the function.

Start with a role list: carrier, driver, other persons or businesses used, and the specific task of each. Add the designation in the order, the actual activity and the part of the carriage concerned.

Then describe the alleged event in one sentence. Separate act and omission, state time and place, and connect the event with the assigned function. This avoids inferring attribution only from the damage that occurred.

If the transport file is contradictory or the involvement of another business is unclear, the complete sequence should be reviewed early. For a specific assessment, the transport order, consignment note, handovers and communications about the event are particularly useful.

Receive new articles and legal information from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.