The plaintiff is a casualty insurance company providing marine insurance and fire insurance. The defendant is a company doing business in ocean shipping and terminal/stevedore services.

The relevant bill of lading incorporated '[t]he Hague Rules contained in the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading, dated Brussels the 25th August 1924 as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to this contract'. Clause 2 also explicitly stipulated that '[i]n transactions where the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading ... is applicable, pertinent provisions shall be deemed to be specified in Bill of lading of this case.' The cargo (steel coils) was damaged in transit. The plaintiff paid out insurance proceeds and was subrogated to the claim against the defendant. The court below found the defendant liable. The defendant appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

There were several grounds of appeal in this case. Relevantly, the court below had held that the defendant had breached its duty to take reasonable care in loading and stowing the goods. The facts established that black spots on the goods appeared during the ocean shipping because of the defendant's negligence. Therefore, the court below was justified in imposing liability on the defendant for damages. There were no factual or legal errors as to the court's findings regarding the carrier's breach of the duty to use reasonable care in ocean shipping. Nor was there error as to which party bears the burden of proof in this regard.

The court below also held that the charterer of the vessel merely paid for the stevedoring services, and it was the defendant as the carrier who bore the responsibility of performing loading / stacking at its own risk. The court's judgment is justified in light of the record and there are no errors in matters of law or fact-finding. As long as the defendant as the carrier bears the responsibility of performing loading / stacking and the black spots were created by the defendant's negligence, the court below did not err by misinterpreting legal principles as to immunities of the carrier as provided by art 789(2)(6) of the Commercial Code.

The court below rejected the defendant's arguments that the cargo damage was due to the shipper's insufficient packing or inherent vice. The court rejected these arguments on the ground that the defendant could not assert that the shipment was packed insufficiently because the bill of lading in this case was a clean on board bill of lading, and no evidence was submitted to support the contention that the cargo damage was due to characteristics specific to the goods of the shipment or due to inherent defects. This decision is justifiable.