The Federal Court of Justice's ruling clarifies that when claiming compensation from the carrier, the claimant must prove that the goods were accepted complete and undamaged. In the case of frozen goods, it must also be proven that they were handed over in a properly refrigerated condition. Furthermore, the importance of the acceptance receipt as a rebuttable presumption of the accuracy of the information is emphasized.
Verdict
The claimant seeking compensation from the carrier must demonstrate, and in the event of a dispute, prove, that the carrier took delivery of the consignment in full and without damage. This includes proof of the acceptance of the goods as such, as well as evidence of their identity, type, quantity, and condition.
If the goods being transported are frozen, the claimant must prove that they were handed over to the carrier in a properly refrigerated condition.
If the carrier or an agent appointed by them can check the number of goods upon receipt, but does not make use of this option and nevertheless acknowledges their number, they are acting inconsistently with the principles of good faith pursuant to Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if they later claim that the receipt for receipt was issued "blindly". In such a case, the receipt for receipt establishes the rebuttable presumption that the number of items stated in the receipt is correct. This result is supported by the great importance that the receipt for receipt plays in the transport sector for proving that the goods have been received. If the driver confirms the proper pre-cooling of the goods with his signature without prior verification and if he had the opportunity to take a temperature measurement himself or to have the temperature measurement checked by the loader, he cannot successfully claim that he signed the receipt for receipt "blindly".
Conclusion
The ruling underscores the importance of careful inspection by the carrier upon receipt, especially with sensitive goods such as frozen products. Simply signing a receipt without prior inspection does not constitute sufficient caution to later claim ignorance. Rather, the ruling strengthens the legal position of claimants by setting clear requirements for documentation and monitoring of the receipt of goods in order to prevent any damage or loss and to fairly distribute the burden of proof.
English 
German 
Dutch