t to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and whi

First, the freight broker is never legally liable for damaged cargo or missing pieces unless they assume this by contract or if they are negligent in their operations. So, what does he or she do when these problems arise (and they will at one time or another)?

The broker should be ready to talk to the receiver, the shipper and the carrier when these problems arise. But it's up to the shipper to file a claim should they decide to. The shipper often times assesses a dollar amount of damage and then deducts it from what they owe the broker. And the broker then turns around and deducts it from the motor carrier.

This is not the right way to do it. But this is the way many shippers choose to do it. And the broker has no control over how the shipper wants to handle this.

Second, there are all kinds of issues that may arise when there is damaged cargo or missing pieces. These issues are usually strictly between the shipper and carrier.

The carrier normally assumes full liability for any damage or missing pieces. But what happens if the carrier says the damage occurred before loading. What happens when there is concealed damage that wasn't apparent during unloading? What happens if the carrier is not allowed to observe the loading? How is he to know what the count is that he picked up? What if, what if, what if.

There may be a lot of what ifs. But the fortunate thing for brokers is - these issues are between the shipper and carrier. The broker should only play a small, intermediary role when dealing with these problems.

That's not to say that all shippers understand this. They may want the freight broker to assume responsibility for clearing things up. But this is not correct. It is the broker's responsibility to know where the broker stands in the midst of these problems. Otherwise, a shipper may intimidate the broker either out of ignorance of the law or just sheer ignorance.

Unless you are an attorney, it’s difficult to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and whit

ge and then deducts it from what they owe the broker. And the broker then turns around and deducts it from the motor carrier.

This is not the right way to do it. But this is the way many shippers choose to do it. And the broker has no control over how the shipper wants to handle this.

Second, there are all kinds of issues that may arise when there is damaged cargo or missing pieces. These issues are usually strictly between the shipper and carrier.

The carrier normally assumes full liability for any damage or missing pieces. But what happens if the carrier says the damage occurred before loading. What happens when there is concealed damage that wasn't apparent during unloading? What happens if the carrier is not allowed to observe the loading? How is he to know what the count is that he picked up? What if, what if, what if.

There may be a lot of what ifs. But the fortunate thing for brokers is - these issues are between the shipper and carrier. The broker should only play a small, intermediary role when dealing with these problems.

That's not to say that all shippers understand this. They may want the freight broker to assume responsibility for clearing things up. But this is not correct. It is the broker's responsibility to know where the broker stands in the midst of these problems. Otherwise, a shipper may intimidate the broker either out of ignorance of the law or just sheer ignorance.

Unless you are an attorney, it’s difficult to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and whi

es full liability for any damage or missing pieces. But what happens if the carrier says the damage occurred before loading. What happens when there is concealed damage that wasn't apparent during unloading? What happens if the carrier is not allowed to observe the loading? How is he to know what the count is that he picked up? What if, what if, what if.

There may be a lot of what ifs. But the fortunate thing for brokers is - these issues are between the shipper and carrier. The broker should only play a small, intermediary role when dealing with these problems.

That's not to say that all shippers understand this. They may want the freight broker to assume responsibility for clearing things up. But this is not correct. It is the broker's responsibility to know where the broker stands in the midst of these problems. Otherwise, a shipper may intimidate the broker either out of ignorance of the law or just sheer ignorance.

Unless you are an attorney, it’s difficult to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and whi

should only play a small, intermediary role when dealing with these problems.

That's not to say that all shippers understand this. They may want the freight broker to assume responsibility for clearing things up. But this is not correct. It is the broker's responsibility to know where the broker stands in the midst of these problems. Otherwise, a shipper may intimidate the broker either out of ignorance of the law or just sheer ignorance.

Unless you are an attorney, it’s difficult to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and whi

t to keep up on all the court cases that involve claims and damaged goods. And from what I understand, a court may rule one way in one part of the country and another court may rule another way. So there’s no “black and white”. It’s all gray area.

The facts and issues involved in court cases are bad enough to follow. Then you have to try and interpret what the attorney’s are saying. Attorneys, to be blunt, don’t know how to write for the general public. It’s just a fact – black and white. So, you have to try the best you can to understand exactly what point the attorney is making. And this isn’t easy.

In the meantime, you have to live with the ambiguities the best you can. Things won’t change much in the foreseeable future.