A load arrives damaged and the question is who pays. That question turns on two things: where in the journey the damage occurred, and whether the packaging was specified and used in a way that should have prevented it. Both are answerable, and both depend on evidence gathered at the time rather than reconstructed later.
Establishing when it happened
Damage found at delivery may have occurred at packing, during transit, or during unloading. The condition of the packaging usually says which: damage to the outer container indicates transit, damage confined to the contents with intact packaging indicates packing, and damage at one end of a load indicates handling. Photographing the packaging before unpacking is the single most valuable thing to do.
What the packaging was specified to do
A container rated for a stack height protects against a stack load within that height, and not against a drop from a forklift. Where a claim turns on whether the packaging was adequate, the specification is the reference – and where no specification was ever written, there is nothing to compare against. That is why a written specification matters commercially as well as technically.
The condition of the container matters
A container that was already damaged or worn before the trip is a different case from one that was sound. Where containers are inspected before loading, the inspection record settles that question; where they are not, it becomes an argument. A pre-loading condition check is cheap and it is the evidence that decides many claims. The criteria are set out in writing a retirement criterion.
Loading method, and who specified it
Most transit damage comes from how the load was built and secured rather than from the packaging alone. Where the loading method was specified by the shipper and followed, that is one case; where it was improvised, it is another. A written loading instruction, and a photograph of the load before the vehicle is sealed, is the evidence.
What the carrier’s terms say
Carrier liability is limited and defined by the terms of carriage and by the applicable convention. Where a claim exceeds those limits, the remainder falls on whoever was responsible or on insurance. Where a lane regularly carries high-value loads, the terms and the insurance are worth reviewing before a claim rather than during one.
What to do at the time
Photograph before unpacking, inside and outside, including the packaging. Note the condition of the seals and the vehicle. Record the load configuration. And keep the packaging until the claim is settled – a container thrown away is evidence destroyed, and it is the most common reason a claim fails.
Preventing the argument
A written specification for the packaging and the loading method, a pre-loading inspection, and photographs at despatch and at receipt. None of those are onerous, and together they convert a claim from a dispute into a determination. Where a lane has had repeated damage claims, these are usually the missing pieces.
Where this meets the container specification
If the same damage recurs, the specification is probably the answer rather than the claim. Where loads consistently arrive with crushed bottom layers, the stack rating was too low for the actual conditions, and buying a stronger container removes the problem and the claims together. The failure patterns are catalogued in the damage modes that end a container.