This was an appeal brought by Globalmar Reefers SL (the appellant) against Catafruit SA (the respondent) against a decision of the First Commercial Court of Lleida, dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent. The court below held that, although the appellant had the right to charge for its carriage of goods, the reduced compensation paid by the respondent was correct in that the goods transported (pears and apples) were not suitable for human consumption.

Held: Appeal partially upheld (on quantum). 

The appellant questioned the legal nature of the carriage contract between the parties, alleging that the judgment of the court below asserted that we are not dealing with multimodal transport when it is evident that it is, being a combined land-maritime carriage contract, from door to door. The Provincial Court found that this was clearly a typographical error and the judge meant to say that we are facing a multimodal contract.

This mode of transport had been defined jurisprudentially as a single contract for the transport of goods by at least two modes of transport (art 2.1 of the Rules of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, known as the UNCTAD / ICC rules and art 1 of the Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods 1980 (Multimodal Transport Convention 1980), and has been the subject of legal regulation in Spain in Law 15/2009, of 11 November 2009.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this type of transport recently in its judgment dated 26 May 2011, which has highlighted the unitary and non-fragmentary character of this type of contract and the use of different modes of transport. It is clear from the unitary nature of the contract that the parties to the contract are the operator / organiser and the shipper, and in it the organiser undertakes to execute carriage in its own name with the shipper, and arranges, organises and controls that transport, although it does not execute it by itself, but by means of actual carriers, with whom it also contracts in its own name. Said organiser is not only obligated to the shipper to carry out all transport, but also assumes responsibility for the cargo, from the moment it receives the cargo into its custody, even before it is delivered to the actual carrier. In other words, the different carriers carrying out the transport are third parties in relation to the shipper, who only contracts with, and is linked to, the operator / organiser, who assumes with regard to the shipper the status of sole carrier.

The responsibility of the multimodal transport operator (MTO) revolves around two major systems, the first of which is the uniform liability system, which assumes that the MTO is subject to a single liability regime, applicable irrespective of the phase of transport in which the event triggering its responsibility occurs, and the second is the network system that applies the liability regime that corresponds to the transport phase in which the triggering event of responsibility occurs. Alternative systems are also proposed, such as the modified network system (calculation of compensation for unimodal regimes) or the one-way system that establishes a unitary limit, but requires a comparison with what would result from applying the unimodal rule, applying the higher quantum. The difficulty of establishing a common regime in the absence of specific regulations and the possible location of the damage make it advisable to apply a liability regime corresponding to the transport phase in which the determining event of the alleged responsibility takes place.

Article 68 of Law 15/2009 of 11 November 2009 establishes that multimodal transport contracts will be governed by the regulations of each mode, as if the carrier and the shipper had concluded a different transport contract for each phase of the transport, providing that when the phase of the journey in which the damage occurred cannot be determined, the responsibility of the carriers will be decided in accordance with the provisions of this law.

The court below established completely correctly that the appellant was responsible because it was the carrier, also noting that, whatever the reason for the breakdown, the truth is that the obligation assumed by the carrier was to bring the cargo in a perfect condition to Tenerife, which it did not. The liability regime applicable to the carrier in this case completely invalidates the arguments made by the appellant in its appeal as to the need for the respondent to prove the cause of the damage, the causal relationship and the fault of the carrier.

The Provincial Court also reviewed the court below's analysis of the relevant evidence and calculation of compensation, and adjusted the quantum accordingly.