Can the Carmack Amendment be used to knock out claims of personal injury? Normally, Carmack applies only to damaged or lost cargo. But a Massachusetts court has held that the Carmack Amendment prevents a plaintiff from recovering personal injury damages from pesticides used in a warehouse in which her belongings were being held. In Alessandra v. Mullen Brothers, Inc. and The Terminix International Company, L.P., 1999 WL 959684 (Mass. Superior Court. Sept. 22, 1999), the plaintiff contracted with Mullen to transport her personal belongings from Troy, New York to a warehouse for future transport to Massachusetts. Terminix applied pesticides to Mullen’s warehouse and to the plaintiff’s belongings. While unpacking in Massachusetts, the plaintiff allegedly "experienced an immediate, severe physical reaction" requiring medical attention. She eventually claimed that the exposure caused her to develop multiple chemical sensitivity, completely disabling her. She filed suit for her injuries in state court.

Sound like a basic personal injury case? Call your lawyer. He or she will file an answer, hire an expert in multiple chemical sensitivity and take poor Ms. Alessandra’s deposition. Nothing unusual here. But Mullen’s attorney asked the court to dismiss the state claims on the basis that the plaintiff’s only remedy was under the Carmack amendment. Carmack provides federal jurisdiction and also places certain limits on recoverable damages.

You may be thinking--"Wait a minute. Carmack only applies to damage incurred while goods are in transit. How does it apply here, where the goods were in storage?" The Massachusetts court read Carmack’s definition of "transportation" in Carmack: "services related to [the] movement, including arranging for, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, . . . storage, handling, packaging, unpacking, and the interchange of . . . property." (italics added). Take a look at 49 U.S.C. §13102(19).

The court ruled that Carmack applied and dismissed all of her state law claims. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims arose directly out of the shipment of her belongings and that Carmack provided the exclusive means of recovery in interstate commerce. Although we normally don’t think of Carmack in personal injury claims, this case should make us think again.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.