In the freight and logistics industry, when freight arrives damaged, the question of “who’s at fault” is quickly asked and sometimes difficult to answer. Is it the courier, the consignor, or the packaging itself? Too often, blame is misplaced, and the real issue — improper preparation of freight for transport — goes unnoticed. In this blog, we unpack one of the most common yet misunderstood aspects of freight damage through a real life example. This blog explores the role of packaging responsibility. From safety standards to liability implications, understanding how each party contributes to freight integrity is key to preventing losses and protecting your business.
1. Background
A recent claim arose when a customer consigned a leased 80 kg machine for transport. The machine was inadequately packaged — covered only in shrink-wrap and a used carton — offering little protection during transit.
When the driver arrived to collect, it was immediately clear that the item could not be lifted safely using a forklift, as there were no pallet entry points. To assist, the courier provided a pallet, and the machine was manually transferred onto it.
After delivery, the customer alleged that the machine had been damaged and submitted a claim of R150 000, even though no insurance had been selected. Accordingly, their entitlement was limited to the FreightGuard Service Guarantee maximum.
2. Acceptance of Poorly Prepared Freight
One of the first questions that arises in such cases is why the courier accepted the freight in that condition.
As discussed in previous FreightGuard blogs, drivers are rarely empowered to make executive decisions when faced with non-compliant packaging at collection. However, drivers and collection staff should be trained to recognise when goods are poorly presented and to obtain a waiver signed by the consignor.
Such a waiver should state that the courier accepts no responsibility for damage arising from inadequate packaging. This protects both the courier and the driver while ensuring the consignor acknowledges their responsibility.
“If it looks wrong at collection — it’s wrong in transit.”
3. Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Considerations
Although no absolute statutory maximum exists for manual lifting in South Africa, section 205(4) of the Regulations for the Handling, Storage and Internal Transport of Goods (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993) specifies that: “No employee shall be required to lift, carry or move loads exceeding 50 kilograms for a male employee or 25 kilograms for a female employee.”
In this case, the manual handling of an 80 kg machine clearly exceeded those thresholds. Both the consignor and the courier bear a duty of care to ensure employees are not exposed to unsafe lifting practices.
4. The Question of Leased Equipment
Courier terms and conditions generally require the consignor to confirm that they own the goods or are authorised to ship them.
Leased equipment typically remains the property of the lessor until paid in full. Many lease agreements expressly prohibit moving the asset from its installation site without written consent. In this claim, it was unclear whether the lessor had been informed that the machine was being relocated — a potential breach of the lease.
5. Insurance Duties Under Lease Agreements
When queried, the claimant confirmed that the leased equipment was insured under a separate policy, as required by the lease. However, insurers often stipulate that cover applies only at a specific address or while installed, not during transit.
If the item was being transported without notifying the insurer, the cover could be invalidated. In such situations, a Goods in Transit (GIT) policy or extension should be in place to protect the equipment while being moved between locations.
6. Who Should the Claimant Claim Against?
The claimant insisted the courier should bear full responsibility, arguing that the courier “should not shirk their duty.” However, several facts stand in opposition to this view:
1. The courier’s liability was clearly limited to the FreightGuard Service Guarantee.
2. The goods were inadequately packaged and not fit for transport.
3. The equipment was leased and already insured under a separate policy.
FreightGuard, acting as an independent assessor, advised that the correct procedure was to notify both the insurer and the lessor of the damage and submit a claim through the insurer.
7. The Question of “Punishing the Courier”
When informed of this correct process, the claimant expressed frustration that the courier appeared to be escaping consequences “scot-free.” (The word “scot” in the phrase “scot-free” originates from a medieval tax or levy — meaning one who escapes payment.)
FreightGuard clarified that if the insurer approved the claim and paid the lessor, the insurer could then exercise its right of subrogation — standing in the shoes of the insured (the lessor) — to attempt recovery from the courier.
8. Could the Insurer Recover the Full Amount from the Courier?
Only in part. The insurer cannot obtain a greater right than that held by the claimant under their original contract with the courier. This means that any subrogated recovery would be limited to the FreightGuard Service Guarantee limit, provided the claim met the guarantee’s criteria.
9. What If the Insurer Rejects the Claim?
If the insurer denies cover — for instance, because the machine was moved without notification or was outside its insured location — the lessor (as owner) will hold the lessee responsible for the loss.
In that case, the claimant (lessee) will have no recourse against the courier as the claim did not meet the FreightGuard Service Guarantee criteria, and will remain liable for the full cost of repair or replacement.
Lessons Learned
1. Packaging is non-negotiable — Proper packaging is the consignor’s responsibility.
2. Drivers need authority and training — Empower them to obtain waivers.
3. Respect health and safety limits — Never exceed manual handling thresholds.
4. Leased goods belong to the lessor — Confirm ownership before shipment.
5. Insurance has boundaries — Installed cover is not equal to in-transit cover.
6. FreightGuard is the umpire, not the insurer — It ensures fairness within limits.
7. Subrogation has limits — Insurers cannot gain greater rights than the consignor.
8. Communication prevents conflict — Transparency between all parties avoids disputes.