CMR Article 10 Defective Packaging: Sender Liability and Carrier Reservations

1. The exact Article 10 legal rule

Article 10 states that the sender is liable to the carrier for damage to persons, equipment or other goods, and for expenses, when that damage or expense is due to defective packing of the goods. It then states the exception: the sender does not bear that Article 10 liability where the defect was apparent or known to the carrier at the time of takeover and the carrier made no reservation concerning it.

The structure contains three factual stages. First, identify a packing defect. Second, establish that the claimed damage or expense was caused by that defect. Third, examine what the carrier could see or actually knew at takeover and whether a reservation was entered. Skipping one of those stages produces an incomplete legal analysis.

Article 10 therefore works closely with Article 8. Article 8 requires the carrier to inspect the apparent condition of the goods and packaging and to state grounds for reservations. Article 9 then creates evidentiary presumptions when no specific reservation exists. The provisions are designed to create a contemporaneous documentary record rather than a dispute reconstructed only after delivery.

2. Article 10 covers more than damage to the packed goods themselves

The text specifically refers to damage to persons, equipment or other goods and to expenses. A defective crate that collapses and damages another consignment can fall within the type of consequence addressed by Article 10. The same is true where defective containment damages a vehicle or handling equipment, or generates necessary clean-up or handling expense.

The claimant must still establish causation. The existence of poor-looking packaging does not prove that every later cost was caused by it. A carrier seeking reimbursement should identify each expense, preserve invoices and incident records, and explain how the packaging defect produced that particular consequence.

Where the dispute concerns damage to the goods that were defectively packed, Article 17(4)(b) and Article 18 also become central. Those provisions address special risks arising from lack of or defective packing where goods by their nature are liable to wastage or damage when not packed or not properly packed. Article 10 and the carrier-liability defence should therefore be analyzed separately but consistently.

3. The packing defect must be identified, not assumed

A legally useful packing allegation describes the function the packaging should have performed and the way it failed. Examples can include insufficient internal cushioning, an inadequately constructed crate, unsuitable palletization, insecure closures, absence of required moisture protection, or a container that cannot withstand the ordinary stresses expected for the particular goods. These are factual possibilities, not automatic conclusions.

The appropriate packing standard depends on the goods, agreed transport, handling and foreseeable carriage conditions. A heavy machine, glass product, liquid, fresh produce and electronic equipment do not require identical packaging. Technical evidence may be required where the alleged deficiency is not obvious.

Preserve the packaging itself where practicable. Photographs taken after everything has been discarded cannot always establish construction details, fasteners, internal supports or pre-existing weaknesses. Where an expert inspection is needed, record dimensions, materials, load distribution, marks and damage before disposal or repair.

4. Apparent or known defects change the Article 10 result

The final clause of Article 10 protects the sender where the packing defect was apparent or known to the carrier at takeover and the carrier made no reservation. The point is documentary accountability: a carrier that could see or actually knew the defect cannot remain silent and later rely on Article 10 as though the issue had been hidden.

“Apparent” concerns what was visibly observable on reasonable takeover inspection. A broken pallet, open package, visibly inadequate wrapping or unstable crate may present facts different from an internal defect concealed within a closed package. “Known” can also cover actual knowledge obtained through instructions, communications or prior handling even if the defect is not visually obvious.

The file should therefore include loading photographs, driver messages, warehouse records, the consignment note and any written warnings. If a sender disclosed a particular weakness before collection, that communication can be relevant to whether the carrier knew of the condition.

5. Carrier reservations should be specific and contemporaneous

Article 10’s exception expressly refers to whether the carrier made a reservation concerning the apparent or known packing defect. Article 8(2) requires grounds to be stated for reservations about apparent condition. A generic “packing inadequate” entry can still generate disputes if it does not identify the observed problem.

A better record identifies the package and observed condition: for example, a stated crate number with a broken base member, a pallet number with torn wrapping or a drum with a visibly damaged closure. The wording must reflect what actually occurred. A template must never be used to manufacture facts.

Preserve all CMR copies because a reservation added only to one copy after separation can raise authenticity and timing questions. In e-CMR use, preserve the audit trail showing when the entry was made and by whom.

6. Article 10 does not replace Article 17 carrier liability

Article 17(1) states the carrier’s general responsibility for total or partial loss and damage occurring between takeover and delivery and for delay. A carrier facing a cargo-damage claim may rely on an Article 17 exemption or special risk, while separately asserting an Article 10 claim against the sender for damage or expenses caused by defective packing.

The parties should therefore avoid treating Article 10 as an automatic defence to every cargo claim. Identify the claimant, the damaged property, the legal basis of each loss and the causal chain. There can be a cargo owner claim against the carrier and, on different facts, a carrier claim against the sender arising from defective packing.

Where more than one cause contributed to the loss, Article 17 and Article 18 require a careful causation analysis. Expert evidence can distinguish transport impact, improper securing, packaging failure, inherent condition and temperature or moisture exposure.

7. Defective packing is also a special risk under Article 17(4)(b)

Article 17(4)(b) identifies the lack of, or defective condition of, packing as a special risk where the goods by their nature are liable to wastage or damage when not packed or not properly packed. Article 18(2) then provides an evidentiary mechanism: when the carrier establishes that, having regard to the circumstances, the loss or damage could be attributed to one or more Article 17(4) special risks, it is presumed to have been so caused, subject to the claimant’s right to prove otherwise.

This is not the same legal question as the sender’s affirmative Article 10 liability for damage to persons, equipment, other goods or expenses. But both provisions may arise from the same packaging evidence. The file should identify which article supports which legal consequence.

If the carrier itself supplied packaging or undertook packing as part of the agreed service, the factual allocation of responsibility must be established from the contract and actual performance. Do not label the sender as packer when evidence shows another party performed that function.

8. Evidence checklist for a packaging dispute

The evidence should be collected before packaging is repaired or destroyed. If disposal is necessary, take complete photographs and retain representative components where lawful and practical.

9. Turkey-connected CMR packaging claims

For exports collected in Türkiye, record the package condition before the truck departs. Where loading is performed by the sender, distinguish the sender’s packing from placement and securing within the vehicle. For imports delivered in Türkiye, the consignee should record delivery condition under Article 30 while preserving the collection-stage Article 8 material.

Customs or inspection records can corroborate package count and visible condition, but they do not replace the CMR legal analysis. Commercial invoices also do not prove that packing was adequate. The transport file should contain packing specifications, photographs and the carrier’s contemporaneous reservation record.

Foreign clients can provide the sender copy, delivery copy, survey and packing documents electronically for review. Sending documents does not itself create representation and does not suspend Article 32 limitation.

Related English CMR guides

CMR Article 8 carrier checks · Articles 4, 7 and 9 consignment-note evidence · CMR cargo damage guide · CMR Article 6 mandatory fields.

Frequently asked questions

Official legal source

UNIDROIT — CMR Convention, Articles 8–10, 17 and 18.