Talk:Common carrier

Untitled
What's the opposite of a common carrier (at least for railroads)? If anyone knows, this should be added to the article.

"not a common carrier"
This term is used on consignment notes of transport companies. Its function seems to be to limit the liability of the carrier for the goods themselves. IE when they damage the freight during handling or transport, they quote the "not a common carrier" term to avoid being held liable for it. This appears to contradict the definiation quoted which states that a common carrier is generally not liable despite being in the business of carrying goods as a paid service. Stating that you are NOT a common carrier in some ways then removes this "non liabilty" clause doesnt it? I think that the common carrier limits you to "non liability" only in the cases listed. By stating that you are not a common carrier, you can add more limitations. Parcelbrat 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hague-Visby Rules
Does anyone know if these are known by a different name? I have found the following references via Google but I cannot find them on Wikipedia.
 * The Hague Rules as Amended by the Brussels Protocol
 * Hague Rules
 * Hamburg Rules

Parcelbrat 20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide View
The "worldwide view" flag at the top of the article doesn't seem to make sense. "Common carrier" is a term of art in common law. Necessarily, it only applies in common law countries. Obviously other countries have railroads, etc., but there is no reason to call them "common carriers." Actually, the article should make clear that this a legal term of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Whomever put that tag there is not a lawyer, or if they are, they are not very well trained.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Common Carrier law and other questions
If anyone knows the history of common carrier laws I think that would be a good addition to the article. I came here to find out what a common carrier was, which I kind of did, but I'm still non-plussed as to WHY such laws exist. Specifically is the regulation and licensing of the transport of goods and people by common carrier law different to that for other industries? If so why? What takes the place of common carrier law in non common-law countries and how are the same goals achieved, or are they? Sorry to be asking for information rather than providing it, but I know nothing about this subject. Robertwinz (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see an academic work "Lars Gorton. The concept of the common carrier in Anglo-American law." (Stockholm University, Faculty of Law. 1971 (English) Doctoral thesis) Exroader (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

not only admiralty law!
"Common carrier" is not restricted to admiralty law. It should be moved to a general law category.--Espoo (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be updated in light of the FCC's Open Internet Order (Feb/March 2015)
Which applied common carriage regulation to the telecom substrate of the Internet. This came in the wake of DC Circuit Decision in Verizon v. FCC, 740 F3d 623 (2014), which threw out earlier open Internet rules because they were not based on a common carrier model. I'd do it myself, but I'm a newbie here, want to see how this unfolds. Chris2wit (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Chris2Wit

What's the meaning of this?
> Before that time, the Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander, and the DMCA established that ISPs that comply with the DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.

The "Before that time" changes the meaning of the sentence from how it was in the preceding edit. Did the FCC reclassification remove the protections for ISPs under these two laws? --Mwatts15 (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)