Negligence at work results may in one or the other cost a person greatly.

In this
case scenario, a victim of an accident sued both the carrier and the shipper for
negligence for an improperly secured cargo that may have been the cause of the
accident. The participants in the case included the accident victim, the shipper,
and the cargo carrier. The victim felt that both the carrier (Marlo) and the
shipper (Franklin) were responsible for the damages and injuries. However, in
defense, the shipper thought that the carrier was also responsible for the accident
due to its contribution. The District Court of Virginia awarded an indemnity and
the carrier appealed. Based on the appeals, the Courts of Appeal, the Senior
Circuit Judge held that the shipper was not denied seeking indemnity from the
carrier("Franklin Stainless Corporation, a New York Corporation, Appellee, v. Marlo
Transport Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation, Appellant, 748 F.2d 865 (4th Cir.
1984)", 2019). It is clear that the shipper improperly loaded the truck but was
neglected by the carrier. Thus, the shipper could not get indemnity but had a
contribution to the negligence.
According to the Senior Circuit Judge, the issue of concern surrounding the case
was whether the Franklin Stainless Corp. was entitled to contribution or indemnity
for the damages compensated to the victims of the accident between an automobile
and the truck carrying cargo. Thus, Franklin was awarded indemnity based on its
contribution to the accident. The court was informed of the subject Marlo as the
transporter of the cargo from New York to Tennessee. A trucker was dispatched
together with two tractor-trailers to Franklin. One of the trucker employees were
the drivers of the truck involved in the collision("Franklin Stainless Corporation,
a New York Corporation, Appellee, v. Marlo Transport Corporation, a New Jersey
Corporation, Appellant, 748 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1984)", 2019). The truck was loaded
but no measures were taken to ensure the safety of the cargo in the truck; no
bracing or chocking was done despite the presence of the chocking material within
the docks at the truckers’ request. Moreover, the carrier informed one of the
Shipper’s employees about his driver’s lack of experience in hauling steel coils
and thus inquired about the security of the cargo. They were assured that the load
was safe since it was the standard loading procedure. It is important to note that,
Marlo was as a broker paid to transport cargo despite lack of a permit for
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The truck later collided with an automobile.

In conclusion, the jury delivered a verdict against the shipper for improper
loading and upon the carrier as a violation of the ICC regulations. Close to
$470,000 was awarded to Marlo where the shipper paid $350,000. The shipper filed
the actions against Marlo demanding recovery of the paid amount in defense of the
cargo damages and personal injury action. It claimed that despite the lack of
certification, the carrier was negligent and failed to comply with the ICC
regulations. Thus, it sought contractual indemnity based on the carrier’s
negligence. Further, it was stated that the carrier was an independent contractor
whose involvement could not be included in the case. Thus, the court denied the
request for collateral estoppel holding that there was an agreement between Marlo
and Franklin. The court discovered that Marlo viewed itself as a common carrier
despite involvements with Franklin. It was acknowledged by the court that Franklin
was negligent when loading the cargo but also discovered that the malfunction was
obvious.