The case study under discussion dwells upon the incident which can institute different law trials where the evidence and testimonies may be contradicting.
Thus, two sides, Molly Micro and Sally Seatbelt, can initiate the proceedings against Air Transport Limited and a person who conducted the transportation of the fragile cargo, Launchpad McQuack. Air Transport Limited, the company which is responsible for the cargo transportation, can also initiate a proceeding against Launchpad McQuack, who was responsible for cargo delivery. Still, each party has some specific arguments to protect its interests and not to pay for the caused damage.
It should be mentioned that different documents should be the focus of the discussion, the Rules of the Road and the legal documents devoted to cargo transportation and delivery. At the same time, some parties of the conflict have made one and the same mistake which may influence the trail decision greatly, the case study does not mention the contracts and documents signed between Molly Micro, Air Transport Limited, and Launchpad McQuack.
Considering the facts which may be taken into account while this court procedure, the plaintiff (Molly Micro) can provide the following arguments to prove that the company has to pay them for the fragile cargo and for the wrecking the talks devoted to the problem of chip distribution across the Canada.
Molly Micro can state that the carrier (Air Transport Limited) is responsible for the freight from the time it is emplaned on the airplane and until it is delivered to the place of the destination and after a thorough examination is provided. The examination of the cargo is necessary for checking whether the delivery was safe. Furthermore, the company had to care about giving the instructions to the pilot about the fact that the cargo was fragile and required additional attention.
According to the public law “maximum total amount of compensation payable may not exceed the lesser of the amount of such air carrier’s direct and incremental losses” (107th Congress, 2001, p. 232). Moreover, if the company provides the documentation that it was the fault of the transportation company that Molly Micro has not signed the contract for chips distribution in Canada, if the company can provide the calculation of the costs it has suffered from unsigned contract, Air Transport Limited will have to pay.
At the same time, it is impossible to state whether Molly Micro will be able to win this court procedure or not as the case study under discussion does not mention either of the documents which are necessary for such types of relations. Taking into account that international transportation takes place, some international documents should have also been present.
Thus, delivering the cargo to Canada, the company had to supply Launchpad McQuack with the following documents, certificate of origin, a NAFTA certificate of origin, export license, bill of lading, export packing list, etc. (Common export documents for air freight, 2009).
Air Transport Limited may reject the fact that it said about winning several awards as the company d not ask for confirmation of this information. Moreover, there are no documents (as it is not stated in the case study) that Molly Micro informed Air Transport Limited about the fact that the cargo is fragile. If the documents are not presented, it is going to be difficult to prove that the whole responsibility for the contract wrecking the talks should bear Air Transport Limited.
At the same time, Air Transport Limited may turn to court with the appeal to punish Launchpad McQuack for his irresponsible relation to the cargo he was charged with. But, Launchpad McQuack can provide convincing arguments in the relation to his employer stating that he was not instructed about the fragility of the cargo.
Moreover, he was not told about the procedure of loading and unloading of the cargo. Moreover, the pilot was on his first day, and he was not instructed accordingly about the responsibility he bears. Still, the pilot had to perform his duties properly. The fact that he became bored and wanted to perform some sticks was not the justification of his illegal actions connected with the landing on the highway and other maneuvers which caused the cargo deformation (Zafirov, 2009).
It should be noted, that the case study does not offer the information about the documentation which the company showed to its employer and which he had signed. If the list of these documents, if any, is available, the fault can be easily considered. The fact that the pilot landed in the place other than destination (TransCanada Highway) is inadmissible and he bears the whole responsibility for this as well as aerial acrobatics which involved flips and rolls. This was the initiative of the pilot.
The company can also appeal to the court with the demand to convince Launchpad McQuack in irresponsible delivery of fragile cargo. The cargo had to be delivered and showed to the receiver and only in case the cargo was undamaged, the pilot could fly back to Halifax. Still, this procedure was not followed and the cargo was left in the office without the signature of the receiver. Moreover, while carrying out a task the company paid for, Launchpad McQuack tried to entertain himself.
The irresponsible attitude to the responsibilities one is provided with as well as careless attitude to the cargo one is entrusted with should be punished. Molly Micro has the right to initiate a procedure against Launchpad McQuack. The arguments of the pilot that he was not informed about the fragility of the cargo cannot go here as doing his job he did not follow the travel chart and wanted to do some tricks with the cargo which had to be delivered on time and in an appropriate condition.
Sally Seatbelt is one more person who can convince Launchpad McQuack in criminal negligence. TransCanada Highway is a place where cars should be drive, not planes landed.
The situation why Launchpad McQuack landed on the highway was not an emergency (which could have explained the actions of the pilot somehow), it was negligence and ignorance of the rules established by the laws of the country and the regulations of the freight. Referencing to the law and to the actions the pilot did, which caused an accident, it may be concluded that Launchpad McQuack is responsible for the car crash and for the health injuries Sally Seatbelt suffers from.
At the same time, Sally Seatbelt cannot demand for the full paying of the car repair and hospital bill in two reasons. On the one hand, the rules states that there are a lot of conditions which can cause the accident and the driver should be attentive. According to the Rules of the Road, “drivers must be aware that there may always be dangers present due to pedestrians, traffic, weather, mechanical problems or road conditions” (Traffic laws, 2010).
Furthermore, one of the main aspects of the traffic law was violated. Sally Seatbelt was without safety belt. According to the Traffic laws (2010) “All passengers under age 19 with a driver under age 18, regardless of location in the vehicle, must be belted and may be ticketed for violation of the law” (n.p.). This law has been violated by the car driver, so it is impossible to convince the pilot in all the injuries the driver got. In case the safety belt was used, Sally Seatbelt could get fewer injuries.
Thus, it may be concluded that all the parties may have the financial claims as most of them suffered costs. Still, not each side of the conflict may prove the fault of another one. One of the main evidence which lack in each of the possible court procedures art h documents which prove what was confirmed, whether Molly Micro provided the documents about fragility of the cargo, whether any documents were signed with the transportation company, which documents were signed with the pilot, etc.
The case study under consideration lacks legal documents which can prove the words of each of the parties, otherwise, the testimonies prove nothing except for the legal documents which exist and prove the partial fault of the pilot who caused the traffic accident.
107th Congress. (2001). Air transportation safety and system stabilization act. Congressional Record, 147, 230-242.
Common export documents for air freight. (2009). Informed trade: International import/export. Retrieved from http://www.itintl.com/common-export-documents-for-air-freight.html
Traffic laws. (2010). Rules of the Road. Retrieved from http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap04.html
Zafirov, G. (2009). Liability of the Carrier. Warsaw Convention. Retrieved from http://www.3plnews.com/warsaw-convention/chapter-iii-liability-of-the-carrier.html