R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Vanguard Transp. Systems, Inc.

641 F. Supp. 2d 707 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is one of the Nation's largest commercial printers. D is a for-hire interstate motor carrier. P and D entered into a written agreement, the Truckload Line Haul Services Contract, in November of 2004. On about December 15, 2005, D was engaged to transport a shipment of printed material from Continental Web Press to P's distribution center in Atlanta. P knew the brochures were 'a very hot shipment' in that they were time sensitive. P then contacted D and asked if D could deliver a truckload of brochures to P's distribution center in Atlanta. It is at this point that the parties' respective versions of what happened drastically diverged. P claims it told D that the load was very hot and contained advertising brochures for a Macy's post-Christmas sale in Florida. P claimed he agreed to pay triple the spot rate of $1.55 per mile in the parties' contract for D to deliver the load to Atlanta. The P manifest nor any other document in the case supported this claim. Every document showed that D was to be paid the normal rate of $1.55 per mile. Not a single document in the case would have alerted D to the exceedingly time-sensitive nature of the load. P failed to alert the Atlanta distribution center by email or otherwise that a 'hot load' was being delivered by D on December 16th. There was nothing to alert the Atlanta facility of the urgency of the load. Compounding that omission was P's failure to have made any notation in the P Freight Management System or otherwise to have notified the Atlanta distribution center. Upon arrival on 12/16, D went into the receiving area of the facility to check in. The person responsible for processing incoming loads told the driver that he could not unload the trailer, that they would not take the load that day, and that he had 'to reschedule.' It was apparently after 2 p.m. The driver eventually left the distribution center, drove to a D lot less than 20 miles away, dropped off the trailer, picked up a new load, and left Atlanta. After the aborted delivery attempt on Friday the 16th, P and D were in daily contact to reschedule the delivery. Delivery was rescheduled for Monday, December 19th. Not one of the several calls between P and D from December 19 on even hinted at the time-sensitive nature of the load and the urgency of the situation. Even as the last day approached on which the brochures had to be received by P in order to be mailed in time for the Macy's sale, P did nothing to mitigate its damages. D contracted to and paid D $ 751.35 in cartage costs. The production cost of the Macy's brochures was $ 81,650.00, which Continental Web Press issued as a credit to Macy's as a consequence of the late delivery of the brochures. P filed a claim with D in the amount of $ 83,927.44 on September 1, 2006. P sued D.