When a claim arises in the relationship between carriers

The specificity of transport services is, that very often their performance is done by subcontractors. For this reason, one in the carriage of the damage is often the cause of several lawsuits between the victim and the main carrier, between the main carrier and the subcontractors, etc.. In such cases, begins to play a crucial issue, When carrier may begin to pursue the claim from its subcontractor.

Lawsuit after repairing the damage is not in doubt

In practice, the transport, if the claim is not obvious, major carrier usually gets into a dispute with a victim reaching claims for damages in transport. At this stage of the proceedings leading carrier usually does not occur with their claims against the subcontractor, focusing on defense against the charges of the victim. It also happens sometimes, that under the protection of his interests leading carrier przypozywa subcontractor to proceed with the action the victim. In such cases, after losing the main carrier of the process of payment of compensation to victims and is against the subcontractor. This design is not in doubt, because carrier is entitled to claim damages from the subcontractor, he suffered as a result of faulty performance by a subcontractor.

Subcontractor a successive carrier

Sometimes it happens, however,, the main carrier, without questioning the validity of claims against each other, for various reasons do not want or can not repair the damage before obtaining compensation from its subcontractors. There is then a question, or without the victim's satisfaction leading carrier is entitled to claim damages by the subcontractor.

To answer that question in the first place should be considered between successive sub-contractor and the carrier. About the first-mentioned art. 5 pr. wire., Acting, that the carrier may delegate performance of the transport to other carriers on the entire space of the carriage or part thereof subject to the responsibility for all activities of subcontractors. The second appears in Article. 6 the same law, providing, that the carriage can be performed by several carriers of the same or different modes of transport under a single contract of carriage, and a single transport document, the carrier's liability is joint and several. In the case of the relationship between carriers sukcesywnymi art. 6 paragraph. 3 pr. wire. leaves no doubt, indicating, that the carrier, who has paid compensation, have recourse to the carrier bears the responsibility for the circumstances, of which the damage resulted. This means that, that successive carrier can not claim against the other carrier before successive yourself not satisfied the claims of the injured person.

In art. 5 pr. wire. there is no equivalent art. 6 paragraph. 3 pr. wire., which must lead to the conclusion, that in relation to this particular sub regulation is not applicable and should be based on general principles. But what are these principles?

When the damage occurs

The Civil Code does not explicitly, what is meant by harm. Art. 361 § 2 k.c. limited to statements, that the loss includes losses, that the victim suffered, and benefits, which could achieve, if he does not damage done to. The legislation does not indicate so, or for damage should be considered only the situation, when one's property is decreased (bo np. paid compensation to another person), or the injury occurs at the time, When one is obligated to pay (or increase its liabilities are). The doctrine and case law far outweighs the second of these views. It is generally accepted, that the deadline for settlement of claims of a third party has no effect on the injury, This arises because the mere fact of a liability to settle these claims.

Given the above rule, in the absence of different concepts in transport law claims between the subcontractor and the main carrier, It must be concluded, that it is possible to bring an action against the subcontractor before leading carrier will satisfy claims of the injured person.

The creation of a prescription claims

When talking about the creation of the claims in the relationship between carriers, can not ignore the specifically regulated by the limitation of the claims. According to art. 78 pr. wire. vested claim against the carrier to other carriers (both contracted and successive carriers) shall expire after 6 months of, the carrier to repair the damage, or from the, in which the action were brought against him.

This adjustment has no negative effects of legal claims against the subcontractors of parent. As already indicated above, they can be pursued before there is a settlement of claims by the victim of parent. However, there is a practical problem. If we question the leading carrier claims against each other, generally do not occur simultaneously over its subcontractors, because in this way he would jeopardize his position in the, in which the defendant is. Taking into account the realities of the Polish judicial proceedings, not be counted on to, that within 6 months from the filing of an action comes to a final conclusion of the proceedings. This means that, that the claim against the subcontractor may be barred before the carrier will be a major, claim that there is a.

In the situation described above can always take the risk carrier, bring a lawsuit and request for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of, which acts as the defendant. The disadvantage is definitely a successive carrier, against whom the claim is sought. On bowiem until the compensation is not entitled to take action against a carrier other successive. In this case, the claim may be barred even before the rise.

The only solution to these problems is to request a summoned to compromise. The cost of this proposal is relatively small, It interrupts the limitation period, and its preparation does not take too much time, it is not necessary to invoke the evidence and its submission.