Plaintiff Spray-Tek, Inc., is engaged in the business of commercial dehydration of food fl avor, pharmaceutical and soft chemical products. In 2003 plaintiff entered into a contract with Niro, Inc.

(hereinafter Niro) in which Niro was to design and manufacture a fourteen-foot diameter cone-bottom drying chamber (hereinafter drying chamber) for plaintiff. Pursuant to the terms of the contract Niro was also responsible for shipping the drying chamber from its facility in Hudson, Wisconsin, to plaintiff’s facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

The contract stated in relevant part:

* * * *

For one (1) Niro-Bowen * * * drying chamber, * * * F.O.B. points of manufacture in the U.S.A. * * *

Price * * * $1,161,500.00

* * * *

IX. RISKS OF LOSS. The Purchaser shall bear the risk of loss of or damage to the equipment and parts after delivery of the equipment and parts to the job site or to the shipping point if delivery F.O.B. shipping point is specifi ed.

On October 14, 2004 Niro’s representative Mr. David Thoen contacted defendant Robbins Motor Transportation, Inc., to obtain an estimate for transporting the drying chamber to plaintiff. Mr. Thoen spoke with Mr. Robert Kauffman, Jr., who serves as defendant’s Southwest Regional Terminal Manager. * * *

Mr. Kauffman prepared and sent an estimate to Niro.

Mr. Thoen signed the estimate and faxed it back to defendant * * * .

On October 18, 2004 defendant arrived at Niro’s facility in Hudson, Wisconsin, and the drying chamber was loaded onto its trailer. Niro prepared a Bill of Lading * * * .

* * * *

On or about October 28, 2004, the drying chamber was damaged while it was in transit * * * in Baltimore, Maryland. Accordingly, the drying chamber never arrived at plaintiff’s facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The drying chamber was damaged when it struck an overpass and became dislodged from defendant’s vehicle. It was inspected and declared a total loss.

Accordingly, Niro manufactured a replacement drying chamber for plaintiff and invoiced it $233,100.00 in replacement costs.

* * * *

[Spray-Tek fi led a suit in a federal district court against Robbins under a federal statute known as the Carmack Amendment to recover the replacement cost and other expenses.] The Carmack Amendment * * * states in relevant part:

A carrier providing transportation or service * * * shall issue a receipt or bill of lading for property it receives for transportation under this part. That carrier * * * [is] liable to the person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading.

The purpose of the Carmack Amendment is to establish uniform federal guidelines designed in part to remove the uncertainty surrounding a carrier’s liability when damage occurs to a shipper’s interstate shipment.

Under the Carmack Amendment plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case [legally suffi cient case] which requires it to demonstrate: (1) delivery to the carrier in good condition; (2)

arrival in damaged condition; and

(3) the amount of damages. * * *

The excepted causes [relieving a carrier of liability] are: (1) acts of God; (2) the public enemy; (3) acts of the shipper himself; (4) public authority; or (5) the inherent vice or nature of the goods.

Defendant concedes that it received the drying chamber in good condition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s first element of its prima facie case is established.

* * * *

It is undisputed that the drying chamber was damaged when it struck an overpass and became dislodged from defendant’s vehicle.

Additionally, it is undisputed that after the accident the drying chamber was inspected and declared a total loss......

Questions:-

1. Would the result have been different if the contract between Spray-Tek and Niro had specified “F.O.B. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania”? Explain.

2. One of the elements required to establish a carrier’s liability is a showing that the goods arrived in damaged condition.
Should Robbins Motor Transportation have been absolved of liability in this case on the ground that the drying chamber never arrived at its fi nal destination? Why or why not?