Banco de Seguros del Estado (the plaintiff) claimed damage to a cargo of 955 boxes of frozen meat, to be carried by Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd (Evergreen) in a reefer container from Montevideo, Uruguay, via the port of Buenos Aires, Argentina, to St Petersburg, Russia, on the MV MSC Geneva. The carriage from Montevideo to the port of Buenos Aires was performed by the barge Denise, owned by Vessel Atlántica SA (Atlántica), subcontracted by Evergreen. A storm occurred during the voyage from Montevideo to Buenos Aires. On arrival, it was reported that the left lateral panel of the container was deformed, water and mud were present inside the container, and some boxes were damaged. The local authorities declared the cargo unsuitable for human consumption. The plaintiff, acting under an assignment of rights, filed the lawsuit against Evergreen and Atlántica.

Evergreen denied any liability, invoking arts 4.2.c and 4.2.d of the Hague-Visby Rules as amended by the 1979 Protocol, alleging the damage was caused by a storm, strong winds, and waves during the voyage. It also requested indemnification from the co-defendant Atlántica. Atlántica alleged it acted with due and reasonable diligence to make the barge seaworthy, and contended that the damage was caused by a storm measuring level 7 on the Beaufort scale, causing water to enter the barge. The first instance Court admitted these defences and dismissed the lawsuit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal (CA) reversed the decision, stating that the defendants did not prove the occurrence of a cause of exoneration of liability. It was doubtful that winds of 45 km/h could constitute an event of force majeure. According to the Army meteorological service, a storm is when the wind reaches level 8 on the Beaufort scale, meaning winds between 62-75 km/h or 34-40 knots. Although the port was open for operations, it was announced that strong winds were forecast, so the most prudent action would have been not to depart. However, the barge left Montevideo on 19 June 2008, but the heavy winds occurred the following day in the afternoon, when the barge was docked at the port of Buenos Aires. The meteorological conditions were adequate for seagoing vessels but not for a barge. According to the barge's blueprints, its certificates and the expert report, the CA also found that it was designed and authorised to undertake interior and river transportation, not open sea navigation as represented by the route from Montevideo to Buenos Aires. Because of its waterline, the full load and the forecast bad weather conditions, it was expected that water would enter into the barge. Therefore, Evergreen was held liable in contract, while Atlántica was held liable in tort. The Court also ordered Atlántica to compensate Evergreen.

The defendants recurred the decision in cassation before the Supreme Court (SC), alleging the erroneous application of arts 4.1 and 4.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules. They contended that the CA did not assess correctly the evidence of the strong winds that justified an exoneration of liability. They also argued that their obligation was one of means and not of result; and as they acted diligently, they had no liability for the damage. Atlántica also alleged the application of the limitation of liability stated in art 4.5.a of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: The SC dismissed the recourse. The SC disagreed with the conclusion of the CA regarding the character of the defendants' liability, and held that both companies must respond jointly and severally for contractual liability. The SC affirmed that the applicable law was the Hague-Visby Rules as it was ratified by Russia, as the place of destination. The obligation assumed is an obligation of result. According to the case law, in international transport, it is possible to claim damages against the direct and the indirectly responsible party. It is the several and joint liability of the different operators that composes the contract of carriage, so that the actual carrier does not only respond as a subcontractor in relation to the freight forwarder, but also in relation to the consignee, as part of the integrated transport that it accepted and cannot deny. Multimodal operators or freight forwarders are in the carriage business. Following international trade practices, they assume the responsibility of the contract. The operator is a contractual carrier that assumes the obligation to move or to have moved the cargo. If it is not the owner of the means of transport, it commissions the contract to actual carriers, which will perform the obligation assumed by the operator. An element of the juridical nature of the contract of carriage, unimodal or multimodal, is a lease of work and not of service because it is an obligation of result undertaken by the operator. In this regard, it must be considered that the operator of multimodal carriage assumes the obligation to deliver the cargo at its final destination, so it obligates itself to execute or to have executed the total movement of the cargo. If the cargo described in the bill of lading was not delivered to the consignee, it is irrelevant to determine how and when the cargo was lost. It is so because, as an obligation of result, the conduct assumed by the debtor does not matter. The carrier can only exclude its liability by invoking and proving the existence of an exoneration cause, which has not occurred in this case. The SC agreed with the lower Court on the assessment of the evidence regarding the exculpatory cause.

On the package limitation of liability, the SC held that it was not applicable. The rule states that the carrier can limit its liability unless the nature and value of the cargo has been declared by the shipper before the shipment and inserted in the bill of lading. According to the bill of lading, the shipper made such a declaration, preventing the carrier from limiting its liability.