This case concerned carriage of a cargo of 500 pallets of canned asparagus from the port of Callao, Peru. The asparagus was exported by a Peruvian company, Tal SA, to Spain for delivery to Bilbao with transhipment at Valencia. The relevant 'FCL/FCL' bill of lading was signed and sealed by Agunsa Peru and provided that delivery of the cargo was to be made to Comercial Especializada de Conservas SL (Comesco). The initial voyage took place between Callao and Valencia on the CCNI Mejillones 0832NB, after which the cargo was loaded onto a new ship, the X-Press Mulhacen, and transported to Bilbao where it was unloaded and transported to the Selzi facilities in the Refradigas de Zierbena industrial estate. Two days after this, damage to some of the asparagus cans was observed. Agunsa Europa SA (the appellant) claimed carriage costs from Comesco. Comesco counter-claimed for cargo damage. The court of first instance partially upheld the appellant's claim and substantially upheld Comesco's counter-claim. The appellant appealed against this ruling to the Provincial Court on several grounds.

Held: Appeal dismissed. 

Amongst other issues, the Provincial Court had to consider the legal effect of the FCL/FCL clause in the bill of lading and the cause of the damage to the cargo. The appellant maintained that the damage occured as a result of lack of proper stowing and lashing of the goods inside the container, a circumstance that was denied by Comesco. The Court reviewed the evidence and held that the damage was rather caused by the carrier's improper handling of the containers.

The Court noted that this was a case of international maritime transport of goods regulated by the Hague-Visby Rules, which establishes the principle that the carrier must be held responsible for any damage or loss suffered in the goods, unless any of the cases of exoneration provided for in the law itself are present, for which it is necessary to prove not only the concurrence of the former but also a causal link between it and the breach suffered, which means that it was the immediate and direct cause of the damage caused. The burden of such proof rests on the carrier.

Together with this burden of proof, it should be noted that insufficient packaging (art 4.2.n of the Hague-Visby Rules) exempts the carrier from liability if the damage or loss of the goods arose from this defect, which can only be confirmed if it is concluded that it was not adequate to resist the handling of the goods in the circumstances in which they are to be transported. Contrary to the appellant's assertions, the shipper's system of padding and lashing was correct, so the appeal must be dismissed.

The appellant's responsibility to load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods are operations that are not related to the so-called nautical faults (art 4.2.a of the Hague-Visby Rules) which are those committed in the navigation and in the handling of the ship. Faults that directly affect the care and handling of the cargo cannot, therefore, constitute a reason for exemption from liability of the carrier, who could prevent, avoid or reduce the damage to the cargo related to those actions that are its responsibility.