ABB INC. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, prior to 1995, carriers were obliged to file their tariffs publicly, and thus shippers were generally charged with notice of the terms but that now “tariff” is “merely a contractual term”
• stating that “we are bound by the express language of the Car-mack Amendment, which puts the burden on the carrier to demonstrate that the parties had a written agreement to limit the carrier’s liability, irrespective whether the shipper drafted the bill of lading”
• “The text of the Carmack Amendment imposes full liability on carriers, without regard to which party prepared the bill of lading.”
• “The Carmack Amendment’s exception allowing for limited liability is ‘a very narrow exception to the general rule’ imposing full liability on the carrier.”
• “[W]e decline to conclude that a shipper should be held to notice of a privately held price list based only on generic and ambiguous language referencing a “tariff’ or “classification.””
• “Without a rule requiring at least some specificity in a written agreement, the shipper would not have a reasonable opportunity to choose between two or more levels of liability, but instead would be automatically and unwittingly subject to the carrier’s unilateral choice of a rate authority.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named ABB INC. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• ABB, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 2012-03-22