Produce Pointers

The Problem: Conflicting temperature readings.

The Key Point: Consider all available information.

The Solution: Carriers are expected to maintain air temperatures throughout the trailer.

QUESTION: We are a produce distributor with offices throughout the United States and Canada. We are interested in your thoughts on whether a portable recorder or a reefer download “holds more weight.” It’s my thought that the portable recorder is much more subjective since it can be placed in various locations, yet the download doesn’t change and measures overall temperature in the trailer and not just of the air around it. Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

ANSWER: We have written in detail on this topic, including an article titled “Assessing Transit Temperatures” and in Blue Book’s Transportation Guidelines, which can both be found on Blue Book Online Services at producebluebook.com. Essentially, we have taken the position that carriers are responsible for maintaining air temperatures throughout the trailer and therefore the readings from both the reefer-based recorder (taken from the nose of the trailer) and any portable recorders (often in the tail of the trailer) should all be within a few degrees of the instructed temperature.

Our Transportation Guidelines offer the following—

When faced with conflicting evidence as to the air temperatures in transit (e.g., temperature reports from recorders differ, and/or destination pulp temperatures are inconsistent with temperature report(s)) the recommended approach is to weigh all the information provided in each case and assess transit temperatures based on the prepon-derance of the evidence. Because portable temperature recorders are designed for the purpose of recording air temperatures, and because they have been widely used for decades by the industry for this purpose, temperature reports from portable recorders should be given considerable weight. We also tend to give considerable weight to temperature reports from reefer systems. Some of the limitations of relying solely on produce pulp temperatures to prove transit temperatures are described in Section IV (3) CARRIERS- Transit Temperatures.

We think the easiest example to imagine is one where there is no chute and the air flow “short-circuits” leaving the tail of the trailer warm, while the nose is cooled. Here we would say the carrier has failed to properly maintain air temperatures even if the reefer download looks good. Similarly, warm pockets can form if air flow is disrupted or inadequate for other reasons (e.g., pinched chute). If a portable recorder shows that a portion of the trailer was not adequately cooled, this may be proper grounds for a claim, even if the reefer download looks good.

Of course, pulp temperatures at destination may also provide important information in some cases, but relying on pulp temperatures to assess air temperatures in transit presents a number of difficulties. Was the product still loaded when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) took destination pulp temperatures? Was the product wrapped in plastic which would retain its heat or shield the product from the direct exposure to air temperatures in the trailer? Do we really know what pulp temperatures at shipping point were?

In the end, all available temperature information must be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis, with the trier of fact (usually a judge or arbitrator) expected to weigh the evidence and decide whether or not the carrier properly maintained air temperatures in transit.

——

Your questions? Yes, send them in.  Legal answers? No, industry knowledgeable answers. If you have questions or would like further information, email tradingassist@bluebookservices.com.