has consistently interpreted the Carmack Amendment as broadly occupying the entire interstate shipment field of commerce: [The Carmack Amendment] supersedes all the regulations and policies of a particular state upon the same subject.... It embraces the subject of the liability of the carrier under a bill of lading which he must issue, and limits his power to exempt himself by rule, regulation, or contract. Almost every detail of the subject is covered so completely that there can be no rational doubt but that Congress intended to take possession of the subject, and supersede all state regulation with reference to it. Adams Express Co., 226 U.S. at 505-06, 33 S.Ct. 148; see also Georgia, Fl. & Ala. Railroad Co v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 196, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948 (1916) (<HOLDING>); Arctic Exp., Inc. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce
holding that section 636b1c  does not require any review at all  of any issue that is not the subject of an objection holding that failure to request an admonition waives any error resulting from a failure to admonish the jury holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that carmack amendment embraces all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carriers duty as to any part of the agreed transportation holding that a written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer