HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadcoj0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISIONi OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C . 20548
FILE: B-183243 DATE: AUG 12 1975
MATTER OF:
Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
DIGEST:
Air carrier is liable for damages sustained to
shipment of Government property notwithstanding
contention of improper packing, since applicable
tariff filed with CAB provides that acceptance
of shipment constitutes prima facie evidence of
proper packing and puts burden of proof on carrier
to show absence of negligence. Issue of liability
is determinable under provisions of tariff; common
law rules and presumptions apply only when not in
conflict with tariff.
Flying Tiger Line, Inc. (Flying Tiger) has presented a
claim for refund of $2,255.94, administratively deducted by
the Department of the Army for damage to a shipment of office
machines transported by Flying Tiger under that company's air
waybill 023/2790-1915 but apparently converted to Government
bill of lading H-6234799 at destination.
It appears that the shipment of office machines moved
from Portland, Oregon, by air via Flying Tiger to Cleveland,
Ohio, and then by truck via Quick Air Freight, Inc. (Quick Air)
to the Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio. It
is undisputed that the shipment was received in a damaged con-
dition with repair and replacement costs estimated by the Army
at $2,255.94.
The Army in effect alleges that mishandling by Flying Tiger
was the proximate cause of damage to the shipment. Flying Tiger,
on the other hand, bases its denial of liability on improper
packaging by the shipper. Relevant facts do not appear to be
in dispute: the shipment was received in apparent good order by
Flying Tiger in Portland, Oregon, and received in a damaged
condition by Quick Air at the Cleveland airport. Quick Air's
PRO No. 11-32326 states on its face:
NOTE
CARTON [sic] WERE POORLY PACKED
AND IN CRUSHED CONDITION. PUBLISiD) DECISION
5s Comp. Gen. .........
N
r'.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadcoj0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)