In December 1965, 477 crates containing Fiat trucks were loaded onto the Gabbiano in Genoa, Italy. During its prior voyages, the vessel had carried manganese and bulk coal coke. Once the ship reached the port of destination of La Guaira in Venezuela, it was found that seawater had submerged all the trucks. It was also found that this submersion was caused by eroded seals on the doors of the deep tanks. The consignee, Fabbrica Industrial Automotores Venezuela (FIAV), requested the President of the Tribunal of Venice (as Venice was the first place where the ship docked after the voyage in question) to identify the reasons for the damage. The Tribunal confirmed that the lack of seals on the deep tank doors constituted the reason for the submersion of the trucks. The Venezuelan insurance company, Nuevo Mundo Seguros Generales SA (NMSG), paid compensation for the damage amounting to VED 629,068.87. NMSG then brought a claim against the carrier, Achille Lauro (AL), before the Tribunal of Naples. AL argued that NMSG did not produce the original bill of lading, and that AL had exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy. AL produced several certificates issued by the classification society RIN attesting that the ship was suitable for navigation. AL also submitted that the damage occurred because of the nautical fault of the master.

Held: NMSG's claim is upheld.

Concerning the issue of the original bills of lading, the Tribunal noted that they had been presented to the master at the time of delivery. NMSG could therefore only produce duplicates in the proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the bill of lading ceased to have effect as a document of the title when the holder presented it to the carrier.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to the Code of Navigation prescribing the carrier's duty to make the ship seaworthy, reproducing the text of art 3 of the Hague Rules. The Tribunal emphasised that the obligations related to the ship's seaworthiness are to be examined separately from the cases of exemption from liability. Therefore, the carrier must prove the seaworthiness of the ship whenever the loss of or damage to the goods is linked to the verification of the conditions of the ship at the beginning of the voyage.

Moreover, the Tribunal stressed the relative nature of the requirement of seaworthiness. The duty to make the ship suitable for navigation implies a reasonable periodic review of the particular transport which is to be performed. Seaworthiness needs to be assessed with regard to the structural features of the ship, the type of voyage and cargo, as well as the season of the voyage. For these reasons, the Tribunal found that the carrier did not exercise due diligence in failing to review the status of the seals on the doors of the deep tanks. As the classification certificates from RIN had been issued some months before the voyage, they could not be considered proof of due diligence.

Finally, the Court did not find nautical fault on the part of the master in this case.