Banco de Seguros del Estado (the plaintiff) claimed the loss of about 20.5 mt of sunflower oil. The cargo was carried in a container from Montevideo, Uruguay, to Mexico, by Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (the defendant) on the MV CSAV Rauten. The carrier received the cargo in good order and without any marks or observations. The container was discharged at the port of Altamira, Mexico, and remained there for four days under custom custody. When the container was moved within the port area for its delivery to the consignee, the oil spilled over the pavement of the container yard. The internal tank in the container suffered damage during the discharge operations or its transport within the port area.

The plaintiff alleged it was multimodal transport to Jalisco, Mexico, and, according to the Hague-Visby Rules as extended, the damage occurred within the period of the carrier's responsibility. The defendant denied that it was multimodal transport, but argued that it was port-to-port carriage with Altamira as the final destination as evidenced in the bill of lading. Therefore, its responsibility ended with the discharge of the container at that port. It was FCL/FCL carriage, and the carrier did not load the cargo into the container or provide the tank containing the oil. The defendant agreed on the application of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: The Court admitted the defendant's arguments and dismissed the lawsuit.

According to the evidence presented, the Court held that it was a contract of international carriage of goods by sea and not multimodal transport. The Hague-Visby Rules applied because Mexico, the place of destination, ratified them. This regime states in art 1.e that 'carriage of goods' covers the period when the goods are loaded onto the ship to the time they are discharged from the ship. The bill of lading stated that the port of discharge was Altamira. Hence, it was a port-to-port contract of carriage, not combined transport. The box in the bill of lading that refers to any other final destination was empty. Clause 5.1 of the bill of lading also stated that the carrier's period of responsibility for loss of, or damage to, the goods shall end when the goods are discharged from the vessel. The assertion made by the plaintiff that the carrier assumed the obligation to deliver the cargo in Jalisco had no factual support. In the absence of evidence in that regard, the carrier's responsibility ended, and the contract was fully performed, with the discharge of the container at the port of Altamira. The documents submitted to the Court also proved that the loss of the cargo occurred after the container was received by the company responsible for its carriage by road. Apart from that, the container was loaded by the shipper. The damage occurred because of a deficiency in the tank, which was further affected by the truck's movement in the port of Altamira. If the damage to the tank was the result of insufficient packaging, or latent defects, according to arts 4.2.n, 4.2.p, 4.2.q of the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier would also have been exonerated from liability.