UAH 11,278 Recovered from Carrier for Damage to Automotive Bumper During Transportation

Introduction

This case was decided by the courts several years ago, but we decided to revisit it because the battle proved to be truly fierce – the carrier employed every possible argument to avoid liability, and the plaintiff's counsel had to systematically refute each opposing argument.

The Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv in case No. 760/21547/20 granted a Ukrainian citizen's claim against GUNSEL LLC for recovery of damaged cargo value. The dispute centered on compensation for losses caused by improper transportation of an automotive part – a bumper for a Lexus GS Series vehicle valued at UAH 11,278. The December 23, 2022 court decision was upheld by the Kyiv Court of Appeals on September 27, 2023. The defendant was ordered to pay the full value of the damaged cargo, plus UAH 5,000 in legal fees and UAH 840.80 in court costs.

Background of the Dispute

On July 29, 2020, a citizen entered into a contract with GYUNSEL LLC for transportation of a Toyota-manufactured automotive bumper for Lexus GS Series from Kyiv to Dnipro. The cargo was packed by the manufacturer in factory packaging – bubble wrap with markings and the Toyota logo. The declared value was UAH 11,278.

On July 31, 2020, upon receipt of the cargo in Dnipro, the consignee discovered severe damage – deep dents and plastic tears that made the bumper unusable. The consignee refused to accept the cargo. The carrier's representative and consignee executed a Transfer-Acceptance Act, but the document contained contradictions and incomplete information.

On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff sent a demand letter requiring compensation for the damaged cargo. On September 8, 2020, GYUNSEL LLC refused, citing improper packaging. The citizen sought legal assistance from Disputes Law Firm.

Legal Position and Arguments

On September 15, 2020, the client and the firm executed a legal services agreement. Before filing suit, evidence was gathered: the shipping declaration, Transfer-Acceptance Act, photographic documentation of damage, invoice, demand letter and carrier's response, and GYUNSEL LLC's Terms of Carriage.

Special attention was paid to photographic evidence, which clearly showed special markings: "DO NOT PLACE ANYTHING ON TOP" (both in Ukrainian and English), "Handle with Care" symbols, and manufacturer logos. This evidence became crucial in refuting the carrier's arguments.

Legal Foundation

The position was based on Article 924 of the Civil Code of Ukraine: the carrier is liable for preservation of cargo from acceptance until delivery, unless it proves that damage resulted from circumstances beyond its control. The legislature establishes a presumption of carrier liability – the burden of proving absence of fault lies with the carrier.

According to Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, damages are compensated by the party that caused them, when at fault.

Under Section 3.1 of the Terms of Carriage of GYUNSEL LLC itself, the carrier is obligated to ensure intact delivery of cargo to destination if the customer fulfills all necessary conditions.

Critically important was Section 4.6 of the Terms: when declaring value over UAH 3,000, the carrier has the right (but not obligation) to inspect cargo. This right was not exercised by the carrier – cargo was accepted without inspection or objections.

Refutation of Defendant's Arguments

On March 22, 2021, the defendant filed a response with objections. On March 24, 2021, plaintiff's counsel filed a detailed reply systematically refuting all arguments:

1. Absence of markings. The defendant relied on the July 31, 2020 Act stating markings were absent. The reply proved that the Act creates no legal consequences for the plaintiff, as it was executed not with the cargo owner but with the consignee, who refused acceptance and filled out the document perfunctorily. Photographic evidence unequivocally refutes the assertion – images clearly show markings duplicated multiple times.

2. Absence of packaging damage. It was proven that the nature of damage and properties of bubble wrap indicate cargo could be damaged without packaging damage. Bubble wrap is elastic material capable of stretching and returning to original form. The cargo was damaged due to placement of heavy items on top (contrary to markings), while the wrap returned to original state. The plaintiff was not present during Act preparation, and defendant provided no photo/video documentation.

3. Unproven value. The defendant claimed it could not verify value due to lack of inspection. The argument: no objective circumstances prevented exercise of inspection rights. The customer presented cargo in semi-transparent wrap and had a receipt confirming value. If a customer doesn't provide cargo for inspection – that's grounds for refusing carriage. The carrier accepted cargo without checks, thus cannot claim unproven value.

4. Improper packaging. It was proven that the bumper was packed in original factory packaging from Toyota, as evidenced by the manufacturer's logo in photos. Packaging provided by a global automotive corporation cannot be improper a priori. The defendant provided no evidence of packaging non-compliance with requirements.

5. Bumper as fragile item. Refuted by the fact that bumpers are made of dense plastic, their intended purpose is shock absorption. Comparison with glass contradicts well-known properties of this automotive part.

Legal Fees

The agreement established a fixed fee of UAH 5,000 for first instance work: consultations, attorney inquiries, complaint preparation, response to objections, hearing attendance, and filing procedural documents. On September 18, 2020, the client paid the advance, confirmed by bank statement.

The defendant objected to fee recovery, citing formal discrepancies. The reply explained: under Part 3 of Article 137 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the requirement to provide detailed description of work is a statutory obligation that doesn't contradict a fixed fee. A detailed description with time spent on each stage was provided.

Trial Court Decision

On December 23, 2022, the Solomianskyi District Court fully granted the claim.

The court critically assessed defendant's arguments. Regarding markings: photographic evidence confirmed their presence. Regarding packaging integrity:

Absence of damage to packaging does not disprove carrier's fault, as plastic damage could occur without packaging damage

Key finding:

The carrier's rules specified its right to inspect cargo before shipment. This right was not exercised. By commencing carriage, the defendant assumed responsibility for preservation. The defendant provided no evidence that damage resulted from circumstances beyond its control

All elements of a tort were established: wrongful conduct, damages, causal connection, and fault.

Regarding fees, the court noted: the defendant did not file a motion to reduce the amount. Absent substantiated objections, fees of UAH 5,000 were deemed reasonable.

Awarded: UAH 11,278 cargo value + UAH 5,000 legal fees + UAH 840.80 court costs = UAH 17,118.80.

Appeal

GYUNSEL LLC filed an appeal, essentially repeating arguments from its response, without presenting new arguments. On July 3, 2023, plaintiff's counsel filed an objection, noting that the appeal arguments don't refute the trial court's conclusions.

On September 27, 2023, the Kyiv Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment.

The appellate court fully agreed with the conclusions and added reasoning:

Photographs clearly document the presence of markings indicating nothing should be placed on the cargo. The Act creates no consequences for the customer, as the consignee is not the owner, not a representative, refused the cargo, and filled out the Act perfunctorily

By accepting goods without inspection, the defendant considered them intact. No contrary evidence was provided. Upon discovering defects, it had the right not to commence carriage. By commencing – it assumed responsibility

Regarding inspection rights:

If a client refuses to provide cargo for inspection, the carrier has the right to refuse service

Final conclusion:

GYUNSEL LLC bears liability as carrier, and no factors excluding this liability were proven

Regarding fees, the court emphasized: fee amount is determined by agreement between attorney and client, the court may not interfere in this relationship. The defendant filed no motion to reduce fees, didn't prove unreasonableness. The amount of UAH 5,000 is within reasonable bounds.

Legal Significance of the Case

Presumption of carrier liability. Article 924 of the Civil Code establishes that carriers are liable for preservation unless they prove otherwise. The burden of proof lies with the carrier, not the shipper. In this case, the carrier proved no circumstances excluding liability.

Unexercised inspection right. The Terms gave the carrier the right to inspect cargo over UAH 3,000. An unexercised right cannot serve as a defense. Accepting cargo without objections means assuming responsibility for preservation in the condition received.

Importance of photographic documentation. Photographs became key evidence – confirming damage and refuting assertions about absent markings.

Original manufacturer packaging. Courts recognized: factory packaging cannot be deemed improper a priori. This protects shippers' interests – if goods are packed by a world-class manufacturer, carriers cannot cite impropriety without substantial evidence.

Fixed fee. The legitimacy of fixed-rate compensation was confirmed. Detailed work description doesn't contradict fixed amount – description is needed for proportionality assessment, but doesn't change contractual payment form. The burden of proving disproportionality lies with the objecting party.

Detailed response to objections. Success was ensured by thorough preparation – each argument was systematically refuted with references to statutes, facts, and evidence. On appeal, the defendant presented no new arguments, which the court noted.

Conclusions

The case demonstrates that with proper legal positioning and evidentiary foundation, rights can be successfully defended even in disputes with transportation companies.

Key success factors:

Thorough evidence collection from the start – photographic documentation, document preservation, timely demand letter. Without quality photos, the case could have had a different outcome.

Knowledge of substantive law – understanding the presumption of carrier liability and its burden to prove absence of fault enabled proper allocation of proof burdens.

Detailed refutation – the response to objections systematically analyzed each defendant's argument, refuting with specific evidence and statutes.

Fee justification – providing all documents and detailed work description.

The judgment became final; cassation appeal is not permitted for cases of this claim value. The client received full compensation for damaged cargo value and reimbursement of all court costs.

This case is a useful example for those facing improper carrier performance. It demonstrates that carrier liability is real and can be effectively enforced through judicial protection with proper legal positioning and evidentiary foundation.