Juan Manuel (the respondent) brought a claim against Naviera Armas SA (the appellant) in respect of damage caused to his motor vehicle that had allegedly been carried by the appellant. The court of first instance found in the respondent's favour. The appellant appealed to the Provincial Court.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The appellant argued that the respondent had not proven that the damage to the respondent's vehicle was due to its incompetence or carelessness. The Court agreed that art 7 of the Law of 22 December 1949, which implemented the Hague Rules as amended by the Visby and SDR Protocols, was based on the fault or negligence of the carrier, although, in fact, it proceeds for the purposes of onus probandi (the burden of proof) on the application of the doctrine of reversal of the burden of proof, which exonerates the claimant from proving the reality of the damage and the causal link of the latter with the behaviour of the defendant carrier. 

The foregoing, however, requires proof of the assumption of such an obligation by the carrier. Here, the respondent has not provided the bill of lading for the vehicle carried by the appellant, but merely a photocopy of an invoice. The terms of the contract of carriage remain unproven. It also remains unproven if, in this case, it was a third party actual carrier, and not the appellant shipping company, which assumed such obligations.

Without this proof, the claims made by the respondent cannot be upheld. It is not enough for the respondent to claim damage to property he owns and to impute the cause to the appellant's conduct. He rather has to demonstrate, with all his skill and rigor, the actual damage caused, and in addition to the negligent conduct of the defendant, the cause and finally the causal link between the former and the latter, which he has not complied with in any way. This lack of evidentiary rigor totally prevents the success of the claims made in the respondent's lawsuit.