Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. A & P Trucking Co. Et Al.

• 1958 • 358 U.S. 121 • Warren Court
In the case of United States v. A & P Trucking Co., et al., 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a trucking company could be held liable for damages to goods during interstate transport under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). The government had contracted with A&P Trucking Company to move military equipment from one state to another and some items were damaged in transit due to improper loading by an independent contractor hired by A&P. The court ruled that...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1958
Docket: 32
358 U.S. 121
79 S. Ct. 203
3 L. Ed. 2d 165
1958 U.S. LEXIS 1765
Argued: Oct 20, 1958

United States v. A & P Trucking Co. Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of United States v. A & P Trucking Co., et al., 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a trucking company could be held liable for damages to goods during interstate transport under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). The government had contracted with A&P Trucking Company to move military equipment from one state to another and some items were damaged in transit due to improper loading by an independent contractor hired by A&P. The court ruled that under Section 20(11) of ICA, also known as Carmack Amendment, a carrier is liable for damage caused during transportation even if it was not negligent or at fault because this provision imposes absolute liability on initial carriers and delivering carriers alike unless they can show that they were free from negligence and that damage was due solely to an act of God, public enemy, shipper's default or public authority order. This decision clarified how strict liability applies in cases involving interstate shipment contracts.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. A & P Trucking Co. et al., argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent when it enacted the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly Section 204(a). The dissent believed that this section did not grant authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate truck leasing arrangements between carriers and owner-operators as they were private contractual agreements outside ICC’s jurisdiction. They contended that such regulation would be an overreach into private business affairs without clear legislative mandate from Congress, which could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving regulatory power and individual rights under contract law.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(2)
Decided: Dec 08, 1958
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms