深圳市龙岗区人民法院审理了一起公路货物运输合同纠纷案，对托运方虚报货物信息和承运方未尽查验责任的双重过错进行了责任认定[1]。
案件涉及甲公司托运的一大型钢结构设备在运输过程中发生损坏[1]。调查显示，甲公司在托运时虚报了货物高度，申报为3.5米，而实际高度为3.75米[1]。作为承运方的乙公司未有效查验货物信息，派出了二类超限运输车辆进行运输，但该设备实际应使用三类超限运输车辆才能安全承运[1]。
法院认定双方均存在过错，责任分配不等。其中，甲公司因虚报货物信息承担主要责任，比例为60%；乙公司因未经查验便装载运输承担次要责任，比例为40%[1]。据此判决，乙公司应赔偿甲公司设备维修费等相关损失[1]。法院同时指出，甲公司主张的设备折旧费及另行租赁设备租金因证据不足，不予支持[1]。
A shipper and a carrier have been held jointly liable for damage to a large steel structure during transport, with a Shenzhen court apportioning responsibility unequally between them. The Longgang District People's Court of Shenzhen determined that both parties contributed to the loss through separate failures in disclosure and verification procedures.[1]
The shipper, referred to as Company A, declared the equipment's height as 3.5 meters when submitting the shipment, but the actual height was 3.75 meters.[1] The carrier, Company B, accepted the consignment without independently verifying the cargo dimensions and proceeded to load the equipment using a Class II oversize transport vehicle, when a Class III vehicle should have been deployed.[1] During transit, the equipment sustained significant damage as a result of these misalignments.
The court attributed 60 percent of the loss to Company A for misrepresenting the cargo specifications, holding it responsible for the primary breach under Article 825 of the Civil Code, which requires shippers to provide accurate information about goods.[1] Company B was assigned 40 percent liability for its failure to verify the declared dimensions before transport, a duty established under Article 832 of the Civil Code governing carrier responsibility for cargo damage.[1] The court ordered Company B to compensate Company A for equipment repair costs and related losses.[1] Claims for depreciation fees and rental charges for substitute equipment during repairs were dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary support.[1]
