Transportes y Navegación Ramírez Hermanos SA contracted for the carriage of various goods from Barcelona, Spain, to Veracruz, Mexico, with the defendant, IFS International Forwarding SL. Among the goods to be grouped together in a single container were 1,720 kg of soap drums owned by Araesen Aromatique SL, and 1,253 plastic and metal drums owned by Unigolden. The carriage was covered by a bill of lading.

The defendant contracted with Zim for maritime transport. The relevant container was stuffed by Stock Cargo SL, with a preloading report issued by Control System Survey SL before the container was loaded onto the ship, giving its approval to the groupage. The cargo was loaded onto the Northern Practise. During the voyage, a fire was detected in the container. The plaintiff insurer, Zurich Insurance PLC, compensated the cargo owners on behalf of its insured, Transportes y Navegación Ramírez Hermanos SA, and then brought a claim of EUR 43,256.50 against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the carrier due to its decision to group the goods together, thereby increasing the risk of fire by mixing substances susceptible to combustion.

The Court of first instance held that the goods causing the fire were correctly labelled, secured, and lashed in the container, and therefore no responsibility could be attributed to the carrier, who had acted with due diligence, with the consequent dismissal of the claim. The plaintiff appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

It is common ground that the applicable liability regime is established by the Brussels Convention of 25 August 1924 with the modifications introduced by the Protocols of 1968 and 1979 (the Hague-Visby Rules). The Hague-Visby Rules aim to regulate the liability of the maritime carrier for loss or damage to goods on the basis of liability for fault, which revolves around the obligations that the carrier assumes in the transport contract, and a list of causes of exoneration that must be invoked and proven, placing the burden of proof on the carrier, who will have to prove one of these causes (art 4.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules).

Article 4.2.b of the Convention provides that '[n]either the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from ... (b) fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier'.

As this Court held in its judgment of 17 March 2016, the general principle is complemented by another deduced from the rest of the Rules, according to which the carrier's liability is presumed for damage or loss of the cargo during the period in which there is an obligation of custody (ordinarily, from loading on the ship until discharge at destination). This presumption admits proof to the contrary: the carrier may be exonerated if it proves that it exercised due diligence (art 4.1); and to facilitate the exoneration of the carrier's liability, art 4.2 of the Convention lists a series of cases in which, if they occur, the carrier is exempt from liability, although the burden of proof of the existence of any of these causes of exoneration falls on the carrier. Article 3.4 provides that the bill of lading establishes a presumption, unless proven otherwise, of receipt by the carrier of the goods in the form in which they are described in accordance with art 3.3.a, b, and c, in particular with regard to the apparent state and condition of the goods.

The Hague-Visby Rules lack a specific concept of dangerous goods and refer generally to '[g]oods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature to the shipment' (art 4.6). For its part, the SOLAS Convention, Ch VII, deals with the transport of dangerous goods. This is complemented by the IMDG Code.

Based on the expert reports, the fire was probably caused by a UN 1479 Class 5.1 oxidising agent, the presence of which was decisive in causing the combustion process of the other goods located in the container. All other goods in the container were considered not to be dangerous. The evidence established no fault on the part of the carrier, who grouped the goods together in compliance with the applicable dangerous goods regulations, and the cause of the fire could not be attributed to its incompetence. The carrier should not be held liable in such a case, in accordance with the exclusions of liability in arts 4.2.i and 4.2.n of the Hague-Visby Rules (act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or insufficiency of packing).