Duties of shippers, common carriers, & drivers in the trucking industry; Common-law duty of ordinary care; Clark v Dalman; Effect of Michigan’s passage of MCL 480.11a (adopting the federal motor carrier safety regulations as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act (the MCSA)); 49 CFR § 392.9; Abrogation of the common law by statute; Murphy v Inman; A shipper’s common-law duty of care to the carrier & its drivers; The “shipper’s exception” or “Savage rule”; United States v Savage Truck Line, Inc (4th Cir)

The court held that “the common-law duty of care owed by a shipper to a driver was not abrogated by MCL 480.11a.” Further, in an issue of first impression, it adopted the “shipper’s exception” or “Savage rule,” under which a shipper responsible for loading cargo “is not liable in negligence for a defect in loading that is apparent to the carrier or its agents, but is instead only liable if the defect is hidden.” Applying the rule to this case, it concluded plaintiff-truck driver (McMaster) did not show a genuine issue of material fact that a latent defect caused his injuries. Thus, while the court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that MCL 480.11a abrogated the common-law duty of a shipper, it affirmed on alternate grounds its ruling upholding the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for defendant-DTE Energy. As a threshold matter, the court agreed “with McMaster and the Court of Appeals that” a shipper such as DTE owed a common-law duty of ordinary care to a driver such as McMaster in the loading of cargo for transport. Turning to the question of whether this duty was abrogated by the MCSA, the court noted it was “plain from the statute’s text that the MCSA contains no unequivocal statement that the common law has been abrogated.” The court concluded that the “MCSA, which regulates ‘all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate commerce,’ . . . does not occupy the entire field of liability questions regarding shippers in this industry. It is not fully comprehensive on the question of negligence because it does not speak to the shipper’s duties in loading cargo—at all. Legislative silence as to the shipper’s duties in this realm is not indicative of abrogation. In sum, the MCSA did not repeal the common law, either explicitly or through occupation of the field.” As to the contours of the shipper’s duty, the court determined “the Savage rule properly delineates the duties of shippers and carriers and that this rule is consistent with our common law, with our comparative-fault regime, and with the MCSA.” McMaster’s theory was that a large “blue pipe was improperly loaded parallel to the back of the container.” However, because its placement was readily observable to him (and he in fact observed it), its placement was not a latent defect and “no reasonable jury could conclude that DTE breached its duty to him.”