CARRIAGE BY AIR AND LAND

Carriage of goods by land

Rothmans of Pall Mall (M) Bhd v Neo Kim Har & Anor [1988] 3 MLJ 478, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

In this case, Rothmans of Pall Mall (M) Bhd (the plaintiff) sued Neo Kim Har and one of his employees, Lim Kim Huat (the defendants), for the loss of 1,000 cartons of cigarettes that were stolen from a lorry that was being driven by the defendants. The defendants were employees of a company that was contracted by Rothmans to transport the cigarettes.

The defendants argued that they were not liable for the loss of the cigarettes because the theft had been committed by a third party. However, the court found that the defendants were negligent in employing dishonest employees. The court also found that the defendants had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of the cigarettes.

As a result, the court found the defendants liable for the loss of the cigarettes and ordered them to pay damages to Rothmans.





MCC Marketing Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Pengangkutan Sdn Bhd [1988] 3 MLJ 277, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

In this case, MCC Marketing Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff) sued Syarikat Pengangkutan Sdn Bhd (the defendant) for the loss of a consignment of goods that were damaged in transit. The goods were being transported by the defendant's lorry when they were involved in an accident.

The defendant argued that it was not liable for the damage to the goods because the accident had been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's driver. However, the court found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee. The court also found that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the accident.

As a result, the court found the defendant liable for the damage to the goods and ordered it to pay damages to the plaintiff.





Carriage of goods by rail

Kian Ann & Co v Malayan Railway Administration [1971] 1 MLJ 93, High Court, Kota Bharu

In this case, Kian Ann & Co (the plaintiff) sued the Malayan Railway Administration (the defendant) for the loss of a consignment of goods that were delayed in transit. The goods were being transported by the defendant's train when they were delayed for several days.

The defendant argued that it was not liable for the delay because it had been caused by a strike by railway workers. However, the court found that the defendant was not entitled to rely on the strike as a defence. The court found that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the delay.

As a result, the court found the defendant liable for the delay and ordered it to pay damages to the plaintiff.