VII. Does the Road Carriage Act imply that there is actual road carriage in Norway?
The Road Carriage Act Section 1 (1) reads:
“This Act concerns agreements on carriage of goods by vehicle on road when the carriage is against compensation and according to the agreement shall take place between places in the Kingdom (inland carriage) or to or from the Kingdom or between foreign states whereof at least one has adhered to the Geneva Convention of 19 May 1956 on international carriage on road (international carriage)” (my translation).
The Court found this
“to mean that in order for the Act to be applicable, the goods must have been carried by road in Norway before they leave the country” (section 38).
In support of this conclusion, the Court refers to Wilhelmsen, Rett i havn [Transport law in the harbour], 2006 page 38 where, without further arguments, it is stated that a prerequisite is that the transport “comprises an element of road transport in Norway”.
The focus on Norway is a little surprising, given that Section 1 has reference to transport “between foreign states”.(1) Nor is there any mention of this part of Section 1 in ND 1984 p. 292 Court of Appeal (referred to below).
Having concluded in this way, the next question was whether the contract comprised the necessary element of road transport in Norway. The Court concluded positively since
“the location of KN’s terminal in Risavika where the transport started, required that the goods were carried by road – at least until reaching a dock. This part of KN’s assignment was performed by a sub-carrier – Kåre K. Lode AS – which, in return for payment, pulled the trailer with the goods over a distance of around two kilometres” (section 38).
As mentioned above, the greater part of the distance was along public roads.
The question of whether a required road transport had taken place had appeared before the Court of Appeal many years earlier, cf. ND 1984 p. 292 containing this essential passage:
“The cargo is stowed in the semi-trailer at Heitmann’s terminal … Oslo harbour. Thereafter the semi-trailer is connected to a tugmaster and drawn about 300 meters along the quay and on board the vessel ‘Grey Master’, and then the semi-trailer is disconnected from the tugmaster which is driven ashore again. Having regard to the starting point within the quay terminal, the distance covered and the purpose of the transport, this has to be characterised as a loading operation. It is added that the driving distance along the quay could easily have been somewhat longer depending on at which berth the vessel was moored, without a different conclusion. In all events it would have been a very modest driving distance” (p. 297, my translation).
This decision was referred to by the Supreme Court, and it was said that the situation before the Supreme Court differs
“ from that described in Eidsivating Court of Appeal’s judgment in ND-1984-292, the aluminium band judgment, which has been emphasised in legal literature. There, the goods were acquired (2) “Acquired” is a somewhat questionable translation of “overtatt”; I would have preferred “taken over” or “taken into possession” or “received”. at a dock terminal and loaded onto a semi-trailer, which was then pulled some 300 meters along the dock and onboard the ship. This operation as a whole was considered a loading operation without the characteristics of carriage of goods by road” (section 39).