Re: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars

["Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

thanks Leo...I often have thought that what you said would be the basis for handling claims today...The matter of Shipper Owned Equipment as well as the fact that shipping today is done under contract which, I assume, is negotiated between shippers and the railroads on an individual basis.  

In the old days when everything moved under a Bill OF LADING...except in the case of livestock which moved under a LIVESTOCK CONTRACT..which made some exceptions to what the usual BOL provided in the way of carrier liability which provided that the CARRIER WAS LIABLE with these exceptions...Let's see if I can remember them...they were.  In the absence of one of these exceptions the carrier was totally liable for any loss and/or damage to lading entrusted to its care.    It was a case of  "Guilty unless you could "prove" one of these exceptions...  That's why railroads "voluntarily" paid most all claims....  However, early on, in my Freight Claims days I learNed the "ever popular" weasel statement in the event that some hypothetical situation was presented.  Those lawyer like words were  "EACH CLAIM MUST BE HANDLED ON ITS OWN MERITS".And these HYPOTHETICALS  were often posited by those who considered...in the words of one of the attorneys who handled our Freight Claim legal matters....That I was, in his words  "A WASTREL"  

Exceptions to total carrier liability

1.  Act of the Shipper

 2  Act of the Consignee

3.  Inherent vice of the goods

4. Act of providence

5.  I can't remember the 5th one.

I'm told...although it was well before my time ....that no claims were paid for lading damaged in the Kansas City Flood of Friday July 13, 1951.  It was also said that some matters went to court alleging that the carrier did not use  "due diligence" in getting the loads out of the way of the flood.

There were even during my time stories  "Noised about...to use Biblical Terminology...regarding the hundreds of loads of fresh fruits and vegetables and meat which lay rotting in the summer sun for some time after said flood.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: qutlx1@aol.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 6, 2017 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars

 

Pete,

I was,on the NS web site for work this morning. They do have a claim dept. but I'm sure it's a fraction of the size and complexity of bygone days. 

Today the vast majority of rolling stock I supplied by shippers themselves, either by leasing it from an operating lessor,bank,etc,etc. Thus any issue with damage or loss due to the car is the shippers problem.

Leo

On Mar 6, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Jpslhedgpeth@aol.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

You may be right George..but even after 8 years as Manager FReight Claims for Rock Island I never ever heard of this "rule"...That may be one of those "arcane" rules which sat there in the background and nobody ever paid attention to it...Claims were filed on the basis of any difference between the "alleged loading weight and the unloading weight.  The claim adjuster just sat down with the claimant and adjusted  the claims as best he could on the basis of the information at hand.

Also I earlier mentioned that loading weights at "country elevators" were little more than a guess....Someone mentioned that "theoretically" cars used for grain loading would have the "load limit" indicated on the wall of the car by a line again "theoretically" when the load came up to the line.."ipso-facto" this was the weight which the shipper showed on the bill of lading and any difference between that weight and the unloading weight was the basis for the claim...

That's why claims filed on boxcar grain shipment and, in the absence of any leakage were "compromised" to some degree...said "degree" based on the negotiating ability of the railroad adjuster versus the claimant...

That's how it was in the "real world" of freight claims  "back in the day on the Rock Island.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: George LaPray agrail.george@gmail.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
To: CBQ <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 6, 2017 11:15 am
Subject: [CBQ] Re: Grain-Hauling Boxcars

 

The ICC had specific regulations covering grain loss claims, these included a "shrinkage allowance" of 1/8 of 1% of the loading weight, later increased to 1/4 of 1%, applied to all bulk grain shipments regardless of equipment type, boxcar or covered hopper.  When the ICC morphed into the STB these regulations were carried over so they still apply in 2017.  The "shrinkage allowance" was designed to allow for the natural shrinkage of grain when stored and handled, loss of moisture and grain turned to dust in handling, as well as eliminate the very smallest of claims where the cost of filing and settling the claims greatly exceeded the claimed loss.

George,

old railroad grain guy

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: jpslhedgpeth@aol.com

---

Visit Your Group

• New Members 3

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___