This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePROโข card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePROโข card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Georgian to English: Carrier Liability under Georgian Law General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law (general)
Source text - Georgian แแแแแแแแแแแแแก แแแกแฃแฎแแกแแแแแแแแ แฅแแ แแฃแ แกแแแแ แแแแจแ
Translation - English According to the Civil Code of Georgia:
The carrier shall be liable for any harm done to passengers as well as for any damage caused to the passengerโs baggage or for its loss. The liability shall not accrue if the damage is caused by force majeure or by a passenger himself/herself or by his/her baggage. The liability of the carrier may not be excluded or limited by contract;
The carrier shall be liable for the loss or misuse of the documents delivered to it or the documents indicated in and attached to the waybill; the carrierโs liability may not exceed the liability that would have resulted from loss of the freight;
The carrier shall be liable for partial or total loss of the freight and damage caused to it if the freight was lost or damaged from the moment it was accepted up to the moment it was delivered, as well as for delayed delivery. The carrier shall be released from liability if the loss of or damage to the freight or a delayed delivery is caused through the fault of the authorised person and/or because of instructions from that person, for which the carrier is not responsible; also, if the defect of the freight is caused by the circumstances that the carrier could not avoid, nor could the carrier avoid the consequences of those circumstances. The carrier may not claim a defect in the means of transport used for carriage or the fault of the staff of the lessor or lessee of the means of transport to obtain release from liability.
In addition to the circumstances excluding liability mentioned above, The carrier shall be released from liability if the loss of or damage to the freight was caused by extraordinary danger relating to the following circumstances:
a) an open, uncovered means of transport is used, provided its use was specifically agreed upon and indicated in the waybill;
b) the freight is not packaged or the packaging is substandard that, considering the nature of the freight, presents a risk of the loss of or damage to the freight;
c) the freight is inspected, loaded, stowed or unloaded by the shipper or the consignee or by a third party acting for them;
d) because of the peculiarities of specific freight, there is a risk of partial or total loss or damage, namely the risk of breaking, rusting, corroding, withering, spilling, normal wear and tear or the influence of insects and rodents (only if he/she proves that he/she has performed all actions and instructions incumbent upon him/her.);
e) the freight to be carried has not been sufficiently marked or numbered;
f) animals are to be carried.
The burden of proving that the loss of or damage to or a delayed delivery of the freight was caused by the circumstances mentioned above shall rest with the carrier.
Regarding the amount of compensatory damage:
If the carrier is obligated under this chapter to pay damages for partial or total loss of the freight, then the damages shall be calculated according to the price of the freight applicable at the place and time of delivering the freight;
If the delivery of the freight is delayed and the authorised person proves that he/she has sustained damages as a result of the delay, the carrier shall compensate the damage only to the extent of the value of the freight. Damages in excess of this value may be claimed only if there was a special interest (By paying the agreed surcharge, the shipper can indicate in the waybill his/her special interest in the carriage in the event of the loss or damage of the freight or its delayed delivery) or if the value of the freight was indicated;
If the freight is damaged, the carrier shall pay compensation equivalent to the amount by which the value of the freight was reduced
Terms of filing a notice of defect/complaint and the claim submission deadlines are also regulated by law, specifically, if a consignee accepts the freight without inspecting it together with the carrier and does not assert against the carrier any claim of a general nature for loss or damage, then the consignee shall be deemed, until proven otherwise, to have accepted the freight in the condition indicated in the waybill. The claim shall be asserted on the day that the freight is delivered if the matter concerns externally visible shortages or damages, and in the case of externally invisible shortages or damages, then no later than seven days after the delivery of the freight. In the case of externally invisible shortages or damages, the claim (demand) shall be made in writing. If the consignee and the carrier jointly inspect the condition of the freight, proof contradicting the results of the inspection shall be allowed only in the case of externally invisible shortages or damages and if the consignee does not file a written claim within seven days after receipt of the freight. A claim for damages resulting from delay may be asserted only if the consignee submits to the carrier a written claim within twenty one days after receipt of the freight. The days, on which the freight is shipped, inspected and delivered to the consignee, shall not be counted when calculating the times.
Besides this, the limitation period for rights arising out of the carriage governed by this chapter shall be one year. If intentional misconduct or gross negligence is involved, the limitation period shall be three years. The limitation period shall run: a) from the day the freight is shipped in cases of partial loss, damage or delay in the delivery of freight; b) from the twenty-first day after the expiry of the agreed time for the carriage in cases of total loss of the freight or, if no such time was agreed upon, from the sixtieth day after receipt of the freight by the consignee; c) in all other cases, after the lapse of three months after the day of drawing up the contract of carriage.
It is noteworthy, that the limitation period shall be suspended on the basis of a written claim on the day the carrier rejects the claim and returns the attached documents. If the claim is acknowledged in part, the limitation period for the disputed part shall continue to run. The burden of proving the receipt of or response to the claim, as well as the return of the documents shall rest with the person who resorts to them. Other claims concerning the same subject matter shall not suspend the running of the limitation period.
In regards to the Judicial practice concerning the Contract of Carriage, it is quiteย scarce and mainly encompasses the rail freight, for which the Common Courts use the Rail Transport Law.
Matters of the carrier liability, which used to derive from the general norms of the Civil Code, are discussed by the Supreme Court on December 23, 2016 (Case: โแแก-569-544-2016).
In the given case, the claimant (the shipper) was requesting the compensation of 5200 USD for the damage caused by respondentโs/defendantโs (the carrier) breach of obligation and the compensation of 349,90 GEL for transportation expenses. Lower courts satisfied the claim in full, but the Supreme Court partially settled the cassation appeal of the respondent.
It was established in the case that the carrier was supposed to transfer the senderโs parcel, more specifically a videocamera worth of 5200 USD to the continent of Africa. The sender paid the service fee of 349,00 GEL.
On March 4, 2015 the sender appealed to the carrier, asking to return his/her parcel. At that time the parcel was already in Africa.
On March 6, 2015 the carrier sent a written appeal to the administration of the post office in Africa, requesting to return the parcel immediately.
On March 10, 2015 the carrier sent another written statement to the post office, asking to return the parcel.
On March 16, 2015 the carrier received a notice stating that the parcel was delivered to the addressee on March 13, 2015.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the carrier received the request of return when the parcel was yet at the parcel reception-exchange center of the post office, therefore the sender still had the right to cancel the shipment. The Supreme Court did not accept the carrierโs argument, stating that he did everything in his power to execute the senderโs requests in good faith(appealing to the post office twice). The Court held that when excluding the liability of the carrier, the law indicates that both of this circumstances should be present cumulatively: the objective factor itself and the act of notifying the requestor about the factor immediately, specifically, according to the law, if the request is impossible to fulfill at the time the carrier receives it, he/she must immediately notify the requestor about it.
In the foregoing dispute, the carrier prepared the letter that notified the sender about the inability to fulfill his request, on March 30, 2015. Correspondingly, the Supreme Court held that the defendant(the carrier) was rightly liable for damages on account of violation of the rules of fulfilling the legal request of the sender.
The Supreme Court took into account the fact that, regardless of the creditorโs request, the carrier was unable to return the parcel, in view of which the Court considered it right to impose the costs of the camera on the defendant. Furthermore, the Court held that the fee of 394,90 GEL paid to the carrier should not be considered a damage to the creditor, therefore the respondent/defendant should not be liable for this charge.
Translation - English Annotation
The Masterโs thesis above is authored by L.P on topic โ โProblems and results of distinction between Public and Private Labour Law.โ
Given thesis displays a short history of development of Labour law and its importance, covers Public and Private sector Employee rights, duties and social guarantees, rules for hiring and termination, essentiality of distinguishing the differences between Public and Private law in aspects of Labour Relations, the reasons and purposes of it. Therefore the problems of such diversification are discussed above and solutions are offered to them.
For this reason the thesis is based on the research of theoretical issues as well as Court practice analyses and generalization.
Theoretical issues are presented to enhance the importance of the topic, while practical examples underline the actuality of it, refer to the feasibilities or futilities of putting these theories into practice.
More
Less
Translation education
Other - TSU
Experience
Years of experience: 14. Registered at ProZ.com: Nov 2022.
Expertise