The current trend is that shippers are being found liable for improperly loading cargo. Furthering this trend are modern shipping practices in which shippers are banning drivers from the loading dock and are loading dropped containers such that the motor carrier's drivers are not having the opportunity to view the methods used for loading and securing the cargo. Often, picking up the sealed container prevents the driver from seeing that the trailer is top heavy or that the load is prone to shifting.

Recently, North Carolina Court of Appeals in Hensley v. National Freight Transportation, Inc., ruled that the shipper may be liable if it controls how the cargo is loaded or secured.

Of course, the general rule is that the primary responsibility for the loading of cargo and ensuring that the cargo is adequately secured belongs to the motor carrier. However, this tendency toward a shipper's controlling the loading and securementcertainly places some, or perhaps all, of that responsibility on the shipper. Making the issue more confusing is that the results might change depending on whom is claiming the injury. For example, under the Savage Rule, the motor carrier will be liable for injuries to third parties (the "motoring public") unless the loading defect was latent, or not readily apparent to inspection. But if the shipper has a strong indemnification provision, then the shipper might still try to push the loss to the motor carrier.If the injured party is the motor carrier's driver, then the shipper may attempt to invoke the indemnity provisions, even though the motor carrier paid the driver's worker's compensation claim,pitting the driver against the shipper against the motor carrier. If the damage is to the freight being shipped, then the loss will be more readily pushed to the shipper.

Motor carriers would be wise to apportion liability for loading and securement in their shipping contracts.