by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims
Synopsis:
A shipment of beer out of China into the United States subsequently was declared unfit for consumption, and, therefore, a total loss. The beer had suffered organoleptic changes that negatively affected appearance, smell, and taste.
The shipment had been made in an intermodal container and had traveled by highway, rail, and ocean. The importing had been handled by a logistics company that arranged for transportation, warehousing, and documentation.
The ensuing litigation via an insurance claim brought by the importer against the logistics company alleged negligence in cargo care and an unnecessary time delay.
I was retained by the attorney for the Defendant.
My opinions:
The direct and proximate causes of the loss were choices in the type of packaging and the type of intermodal container.
The beer arrived stateside, physically intact, that is to say, without compromise to the palletized loads and without damage to the individual glass bottles.
The bottles were flint (clear) glass. Green or amber would have been better choices because they protect better against the harmful effects of light; relatedly, discovery revealed that the beer had been under lighted storage for an extended period prior to having been loaded into the intermodal container.
The intermodal container was not——but should have been—— the refrigerated type, known in the parlance as a “reefer.”
Discovery revealed that the intermodal container had sat at dockside at a port in China for more than a day beyond the scheduled loading; however, the logistics company had delivered the intermodal container on time, after which, the company had no authority over port operations. Since the time of year was summer, it could be reasonably inferred that the temperature inside the non-refrigerated intermodal container rose.
Discovery revealed that at no time did the logistics company hold itself out to be an expert in the factors that determine beer quality.
Discovery revealed that this was the Plaintiff’s inaugural importing of beer; that notwithstanding, a universally-held expectation and assumption is that being an importer is to have extensive knowledge about the salient characteristics of the product imported.
As the importer, Plaintiff knew, or should have known, that choices in packaging and in transportation equipment impact the quality of beer. Discovery revealed that Plaintiff made both choices. The latter choice was made knowing that a refrigerated intermodal container was an option. Given that international/intermodal shipments, by definition, involve considerable distances that can complicate being aware of conditions on a real-time basis, it’s prudent to build in margins-of-safety in all phases of planning.
Result:
The case settled.
Sterling Anthony, CPP, is a consultant to the industrial, institutional, and government sectors and an expert to the legal community. He is a former manager at Fortune 100 companies and a former instructor at two major universities. His contact information is: 100 Renaissance Center-Box 43176, Detroit, MI 48243; (office) 313-531-1875; (cell) 313-623-0522; (fax) 313-531-1972; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com