CMR Article 3: Carrier Liability for Drivers, Agents and Subcontractors in Turkey

1. What CMR Article 3 says

CMR Article 3 provides that, for the purposes of the Convention, the carrier is responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents and servants and of any other persons whose services it makes use of for the performance of the carriage, when those agents, servants or other persons are acting within the scope of their employment. The rule attributes conduct to the carrier for CMR purposes.

This attribution is not limited to a person who appears on the carrier’s payroll. The wording deliberately extends beyond employees to agents and other persons used to perform carriage. A contractual carrier that hires another transport company, a self-employed driver or a service provider cannot answer a cargo claim merely by saying that the damaging act was committed by a separate business.

Article 3 should be read together with the substantive liability provisions. Article 17 determines carrier responsibility for loss, damage and delay between taking over and delivery, while Article 3 answers whose acts and omissions are treated as the carrier’s acts and omissions when the transport is performed through people or businesses used by the carrier.

2. Identify the contractual carrier before analysing Article 3

The company named on the truck is not necessarily the contractual carrier. Start with the accepted transport order, framework agreement, booking confirmation and freight invoice. The entity that undertook the carriage can remain responsible even where it owns no vehicle and performs every kilometre through a subcontractor.

Conversely, a company that only introduced another carrier can occupy a different legal position if it did not undertake carriage as carrier. Commercial labels such as forwarder, logistics provider or broker are not conclusive. The promise actually made to the customer and the way freight was invoiced and controlled are decisive to classification.

Once the contractual carrier is established, Article 3 asks whether the person who caused or contributed to the event was used by that carrier for performance of the carriage. This creates a clear analytical path and avoids suing every company whose logo appears in the transport chain without identifying its legal role.

3. Employees, agents and other persons used to perform carriage

Employees include drivers, dispatch personnel and other staff whose work forms part of the carriage operation. Agents can include persons authorised to act for the carrier in operational steps. The final category—other persons whose services the carrier uses—is broad enough to capture independent contractors and subcontractors carrying out transport functions for the carrier.

The key link is use of the person’s services for performance of the carriage. A completely independent third party that happens to cause a road accident is not transformed into the carrier’s Article 3 person merely because its conduct damaged the truck. By contrast, a subcontracted haulier entrusted with a leg of the agreed carriage is performing the carrier’s transport obligation.

The factual file should identify who instructed each person, what task was assigned, when the task started and ended, and how that task related to the international carriage. Those details become particularly important when several operators exchange trailers, tractors or drivers during a long route.

4. The person must act within the scope of the assigned function

Article 3 does not attribute every private act of an employee or contractor to the carrier. The Convention links attribution to conduct within the scope of employment or functions. The question is therefore whether the act or omission occurred while the person was performing, or purporting to perform, the transport task entrusted by the carrier.

A driver’s route choice, parking decision, load-security check, delivery handover or compliance with transport instructions normally arises directly from the assigned carriage function. Evidence should connect the alleged act with the task. A disciplinary breach does not automatically take conduct outside the function; the legal analysis concerns the connection between conduct and performance, not whether the carrier approved the precise way the task was carried out.

Where the carrier alleges that an employee acted entirely for a private purpose unrelated to carriage, the chronology matters. Vehicle telematics, messages, tachograph data and route records can show whether the activity formed part of the transport operation.

5. Driver acts and omissions are central to Article 3 claims

Many road-freight losses are connected with driver conduct: selecting an insecure parking place, failing to follow a temperature instruction, leaving keys or documents unsecured, accepting visibly damaged packaging without recording a reservation, delivering to the wrong person or failing to protect the cargo after an incident. Article 3 ensures that the contractual carrier cannot separate itself from such operational conduct simply because the driver is separately employed.

That does not mean every cargo loss automatically creates liability. Article 17 defences and Article 18 burdens of proof remain relevant. Article 3 attributes conduct; it does not abolish the Convention’s separate rules on causation, special risks or proof. A claimant should therefore identify the specific driver act and show how it relates to the loss, damage or delay.

Preserve the driver’s written statement promptly but test it against objective records. GPS history, parking receipts, gate logs, temperature data, photographs, police reports and communications can confirm or contradict a later account.

6. Subcontracting does not automatically release the contractual carrier

International road freight is frequently subcontracted. A carrier may accept a Turkey–Germany shipment and then engage another haulier for the physical road leg. Article 3 prevents the first carrier from treating the subcontractor’s operational conduct as legally irrelevant merely because there is a separate subcontract.

The cargo claimant should keep the contractual claim against the correct carrier distinct from internal recourse between carriers. The contracting carrier may later pursue the person whose conduct caused the loss under the applicable recourse arrangement, but that internal allocation does not rewrite the claimant’s CMR rights.

Subcontracting also differs from the successive-carrier regime in Articles 34 to 40. A successive carrier under those provisions becomes a party to the single contract by accepting the goods and consignment note under the conditions specified by CMR. Not every subcontractor automatically satisfies that successive-carrier structure.

7. What about terminal, warehouse and loading personnel?

Article 3 can cover other persons whose services the carrier uses to perform carriage, but the exact task and contractual allocation matter. A warehouse selected and engaged by the carrier for a transport-related handling step presents a different issue from a warehouse controlled exclusively by the sender or consignee.

Loading and unloading are especially sensitive because Article 17(4)(c) creates a special-risk rule where handling, loading, stowage or unloading is performed by the sender, consignee or persons acting on their behalf. The file must therefore identify on whose behalf the person acted. A generic statement that warehouse staff caused the problem is not enough.

Record who gave instructions, who controlled the operation and what the transport agreement said about loading or unloading. CCTV, loading sheets, forklift records and signatures on the CMR note can establish the responsible operational side.

8. Evidence for an Article 3 claim

Evidence should be preserved before routine logistics systems delete it. Telematics and CCTV retention periods can be short. A written preservation request should identify the vehicle, date, route and data sought rather than demand every record held by the company.

9. Article 3 works with—not instead of—Article 17 defences

Article 17(2) can relieve the carrier where loss, damage or delay was caused by the claimant’s wrongful act or neglect, claimant instructions not caused by carrier fault, inherent vice, or circumstances the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which it could not prevent. Article 17(4) also identifies special risks.

When the carrier relies on those provisions, Article 3 remains relevant to deciding whether conduct by a driver or subcontractor prevents the defence. For example, a carrier cannot rely on unavoidable circumstances while ignoring evidence that the person used for carriage failed to take an available preventive measure within the transport function.

The correct claim therefore sets out both parts: the event creating prima facie carrier responsibility and the Article 3 conduct that answers the proposed defence. Conclusory allegations such as driver negligence should be replaced with identified acts, dates and evidence.

10. Article 29 can make servant or agent conduct even more important

Article 29 removes the carrier’s right to rely on Convention provisions that exclude or limit liability where damage results from wilful misconduct or equivalent default under the law of the forum. Article 29(2) extends that consequence to wilful misconduct or equivalent default by the carrier’s agents or servants when they act within the scope of their employment.

That does not mean every serious mistake is automatically Article 29 conduct. The legal threshold must be established under the Convention and applicable forum law. The claimant should plead the proven conduct rather than use labels such as gross negligence without analysing the required standard.

Because loss of limits can materially change the value of a claim, preserve evidence of instructions, warnings, security requirements and deliberate departures from them. The factual record must support the higher allegation.

11. Do not confuse Article 3 subcontractors with successive carriers

Articles 34 and 35 concern successive carriers under a single contract of carriage. A successive carrier becomes a party to that contract on accepting the goods and the consignment note under the Convention’s conditions. Article 36 then regulates which of those carriers can be sued.

Article 3 has a different function. It attributes acts and omissions of persons used by the carrier. A subcontractor can fall within Article 3 without necessarily becoming a successive carrier under Articles 34 and 35. The distinction affects who can be sued directly and how recourse works afterward.

Keep the single-contract documents, handover records and consignment note copies so that the correct legal route can be selected rather than assuming that every physical carrier has the same status.

12. Article 3 claim checklist

Identify the contractual carrier; list every driver, agent and subcontractor used; record each person’s assigned function; preserve dispatch instructions and telematics; identify the precise act or omission; connect it to the cargo loss, damage or delay; analyse Article 17 defences; consider Article 29 only where the evidence supports its higher threshold; distinguish subcontracting from successive carriage; and quantify the claim under the correct CMR compensation provisions.

Related English guides

Road Cargo Damage in Turkey · International carriage and Turkish conflict rules · English legal services in Türkiye.

Frequently asked questions

Official legal source

UNIDROIT — CMR Convention, Articles 3, 17, 29 and 34–36.