FOTOKINA OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GOLD COAST FREIGHTWAYS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fotokina contracted with Gold Coast Freightways to ship merchandise C.O.D. to Concorde International in New York. Gold Coast delivered the goods to Concorde at an address different from the bill of lading but to the named consignee. Concorde was a fraudulent scheme, and Fotokina sued Gold Coast for breach of contract, negligence, and strict liability. The court affirmed judgment for Gold Coast, holding that under the Federal Bill of Lading Act, a carrier is justified in delivering to the named consignee regardless of address variations, and the loss resulted from Concorde's criminal conduct, not the carrier's delivery practices.
The Federal Bill of Lading Act controls this case. A carrier is justified in delivering goods to the consignee named in a straight bill of lading regardless of address variations, provided the carrier acts reasonably. Under the Act, no liability attaches to the carrier where delivery is made to the named consignee at a different address. The loss here resulted from Concorde's criminal conduct, not from Gold Coast's delivery practices.
[1] A carrier is justified in delivering goods to the consignee named in a straight bill of lading, even if the delivery is made to an address other than that specified in th…
[2] The Federal Bill of Lading Act governs a carrier's liability for loss of goods when delivery is made to the named consignee.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A carrier is justified, subject to the provisions of sections 90-92 of this title, in delivering goods to one who is—(b) The consignee named in a straight bill for the goods”
This quote states the controlling Federal Bill of Lading Act provision that allows carriers to deliver to the named consignee without liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFotokina, an importer/exporter, sold merchandise to Concorde International and hired Gold Coast Freightways to ship it C.O.D. to Concorde's address in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Strict Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Fotokina is an importer/exporter; Gold Coast is a common carrier trucking company. Fotokina sold merchandise to Concorde International and contracted with Gold Coast to ship the merchandise, C.O.D., to Concorde at its place of business in New York.
On arrival in New York, Gold Coast’s driver called Concorde, at a telephone number given by Fotokina’s agent, for delivery instructions. The driver was directed to make the delivery to Concorde’s warehouse address which was different from the address shown on the bill of lading. It is undisputed that the delivery was made to Concorde as the named consignee.
It was later discovered that Concorde had concocted an elaborate scheme to defraud Fotokina. Concorde was not a real entity; its letterhead address was that of an answering service; the check given to Gold Coast’s driver as the C.O.D. payment was counterfeit; the whereabouts of electronic merchandise delivered to Concorde were unknown.
Fotokina sued Gold Coast alleging, in three separate theories, breach of contract, negligence, and strict liability. Specifically, Fotokina contended that Gold Coast’s delivery of the merchandise to a place other than that specified in the bill of lading was the cause of the loss. After a non-jury trial, judgment was entered for Gold Coast.
We agree with the trial court that this case is controlled by the Federal Bill of Lading Act, 49 U.S.C. § 89, which provides:
(a) A carrier is justified, subject to the provisions of sections 90-92 of this title, in delivering goods to one who is—
(b) The consignee named in a straight bill for the goods ...
Section 90 of the Act makes the carrier liable for loss where the delivery is to one who is not lawfully entitled to possession of the goods. In this case, Concorde, as the party named in the bill, was the party to whom Gold Coast was contractually obligated to make the delivery.1 Under the Act, no liability attaches where the carrier, acting reasonably, makes the delivery to the consignee at an address other than that given in the bill. In this case, the cause of the loss was the criminal conduct of the consignee, not the carrier’s delivery to an address other than the one specified in the bill of lading.
Affirmed.
. Refrigerated Transport Co. v. Hernando Packing Co., 544 S.W. 2d 613 (Tenn.1976), the case principally relied upon by Fotokina, is distinguishable. In that case, delivery was made to an incorrect consignee, a "stranger not named in the bill,” at an address other than that stated in the bill of lading. Id. at 615.