Carriers Responsible for Damage in the Carriage of Goods Performed by Several Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to determine against which of several carriers involved in the performance of unimodal transport (by means of one mode of transport) the person originally entitled (sender or recipient of the consignment) may pursue claims for damages arising in connection with such transport. It comments on the provisions of international conventions governing in a uniform manner the contract of carriage in rail, air and road transport (RU/CIM, Montreal Convention, CMR) and in Polish domestic law (Civil Code, Transport Law). The discussion addresses two types of transport performed by several carriers – successive carriage and subcontracted carriage. The author points out the diverse regulations provided in the conventions, with their evolution intended to eliminate the differences between successive and subcontracted carriage by introducing joint and several liability of the contracting carrier and his subcontracting carrier for damage caused by the latter and allowing the possibility of direct redress by entitled persons against the subcontracting carrier. This solution, as well as changes in the market of transport services (liberalisation, demonopolisation), deems, in the author’s opinion, the institution of successive carriage redundant. Therefore, the paper postulates that it be abandoned in the future Polish regulation of the contract of carriage, with the introduction – as do the RU/CIM and the Montreal Convention – of the possibility for the entitled person to pursue claims against the subcontracting carrier for damages caused by him.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".