Who Has to Produce the Evidence in a Cargo Cla广西北海气候im?
Today the Supreme Court issued a judgment concerning the burden of proof in cargo claims. This case was about the carriage of bagged coffee in unventilated containers from South America to Northern Europe. During transit the cargo suffered condensation damage resulting from cargo sweat. The containers were prepared and stuffed by stevedores contracted by the carrier.
The Supreme Court dealt with a narrow point arising under the Hague Rules: who bears the burden of proof in the context of a c甲硝锉argo claim not arising from unseaworthiness? The Supreme Court has clarified that, for all practical purposes, the common law liability of a carrier, unless modified by contract or subject to a cargo convention like the Hague Rules, is to take reasonable care of the goods.
T病令郎的小农妻he position under the Hague Rules was dealt with in two stages by the Supreme C1981年属什么ourt.
1. Article III, rule 2 of the Hague Rules deal with the obligations to “properly and carefully” transport goods. The Supreme Court decided that where cargo is shipped in apparent good order and condition, but is discharged damaged, the carrier must show either that the damage occurred without its fault in the various respects covered by Article III, rule 2.
1. 海牙规矩第III条第2款规矩了承运人负有恰当和慎重地运送货品的责任。最高法院以为假如货品装船时状况良好而卸货时发作了货损， 承运人有必要依据海牙规矩第III条第2款的规矩举证其在各方面临货损的发作均无差错。
2. Article IV, rule 2 of the Hague Rules sets out a list of defences to a claim for breach of Article III, rule 2. When invoking most of those defences, the carrier has the legal burden of disproving any negligence on its part. In relation to the “inherent vice” defence at Article IV, rule 2(m) in particular, the carrier must show either it took reasonable care of the cargo but the damage occurred anyway, or鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网 that whatever reasonable steps might have been ta弗洛伊德ken to protect the cargo from damage would have failed in the face of its inherent propensities.
Since the tria鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网l judge had not made findings on some key issues relating to how the containers were prepared, the carrier had failed to discharge its burden of proof and the cargo claims succeeded.
It is welcome to have clarity on this important习陵 issue. The full extent of any impact from the judgment will only be known after a period of time has passed and no doubt the decision will be subject to detailed analysis in subsequent cases.
The case serves to highlight the importance o民国小说f creating accurate records throughout the period 鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网cargo is in the custody of carriers and of preserving evidence in relation to any potential cargo claim. Practical guidance can be found in e200the Club’s publication on the collection of evidence and in guides on particular types of cargo claims.
A few points can be made about the limits of this decision.
1. Nature of carrier’s obligation under Article III, rule 2: the Court 鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网of Appeal’s judgment in this case reviewed the autho曹征rities on the nature of the carrier’s obligation under Article III, rule 2. The Court of Appeal stated it is well-established that the obligation to care for and carry the goods “properly” under Article III, rule 2 means “in accordance with a sound system”. The law does not require the carrier to employ a system which is guaranteed to avoid damage nor is there an obligation to ensure goods arrive in an undamaged南屏晚钟 condition at their destination. The carrier is to adopt a system which is sound in light of all the knowledge which a carrier has or ought to have about the nature of the goods. It does not mean a system which李倩 is suitable for all the weaknesses of a particular cargo. One indicator of a sound system is that it is in accordance with general industry practice. Nothing in the Supr宝宝咳嗽怎么办eme Court’s judgment changes that summary of the law.
2. Standard of proof: Where the carrier bears the burden of proof, it will be required to demonstrate those facts required to discharge its burden on the balance of probabilities (i.e. whether something was more likely than not to have occurred). Volcafe v. CSAV is not a case about the weight a judge or arbitrator might attach to the available evidence.
2. 举证规范：当承运人承当举证责任时，其需求证明到哪种可能性更大即可（即某事实存在的可能性是否大于不存在）。 Volcafe诉CSAV案并不是展示法官或仲裁员怎么评判案涉依据方面的参阅事例。
3. Evidential Burden: Cargo interests remain under an evidential burden to show that (a) cargo was loaded in apparent good order and condition and (b) that it was discharged damaged.
4. Seaworthiness: Nothing in the Volcafe v. CSAV judgment impacts on cases involving an 成人av电影allegation that there was a failure to exercise due 唐僧扮演者diligence to make the ship seaworthy at the commencement of a voyage in breach of Article III, rule 1. Cargo interests reta鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网in the burden of proving causative unseaworthiness.
4. 船只适航性：Volcafe v.CSAV判定中没有任何内容影响到如下景象的举证责任分配，即在航程开始时承运人违背了第III条第1款规矩而没有尽到使船只适航的尽责任任。货损索赔方负有举证责ssq任以证明货损与船只不适航存在因果关系。
5. Loading, handling, stowage and discharge: This decision does not cast doubt on the analysis in The Jordan II th段茵华鹤顶红,白细胞低-ope体育手机端_ope体育电竞官方网站_ope体育正规大网at The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules do not require the carrier to perform loading, handling, stowage or discharge operations. It is only insofar as the carrier agrees to carry out any of the functions mentioned in Article III, rule 2, that he agrees to perform them “properly and carefully” / with “reasonable care”.
6. Article IV defences: The Volcafe v. CSAV judgment requires the carrier to disprove negligence in order to rely on many of the Article IV defences. However evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier will not defeat the nautical fault exception (Article IV, rule 2(a)) or, as per the decision of the High Court in The Lady M, the fire defence (Article IV, rule 2(b)).
6. 第IV条抗辩：Volcafe诉CSAV判定要求承运人反证其不存在忽略，以便更多征引第IV条的抗辩条款。可是承运人存在忽略不阻碍其征引帆海过错免责（第IV条，第2（a）款），或依据高等法院的Lady M案判定征引火灾免责（第IV条第2（b）款）。
By: North of England P. & I. Association