These proceedings arose from a cargo claim brought by the respondent consignee against the appellant carrier. The Court of first instance found in favour of the consignee. The carrier appealed to the Provincial Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The consignee relied on a report prepared by Global Quality Consultants, which refers to an inspection of the affected cargo of persimmons after arrival at the port of destination. The report refers to the presence during the examination of the inspector of the carrier and the inspector of the consignee, noting that the findings were verbally accepted by all the parties present at the joint inspection. It is supported with multiple, detailed data, and with photographs. Faced with this, the carrier provided a thermographic record. However, there was a lack of any surrounding detailed evidence regarding the record.

In its response to the consignee's claim, the carrier does not deny that the cargo was damaged on arrival at its destination. What it contends is that the damage was due to the cargo itself, or its inherent vice. Thus, it argues that 'the damage detected at destination does not correspond to any defect in transport, but to the fruit itself', and invokes art 4.2.m of the Hague-Visby Rules. Given the nature of the relationship that binds the parties, and since the carrier itself invokes art 277 of Law 14/2014, of 24 July, on Maritime Navigation (the LNM) and the aforementioned art 4.2.m of the Hague-Visby Rules, it cannot be ignored that there is a presumption of responsibility or fault which must be borne by the carrier.

On the basis of the tests carried out, it cannot be considered proven that the damage was due, as the carrier alleges, to a defect in the transported fruit itself (more properly, an inherent defect), since the only evidence that exists and was carried out with an examination of the specific cargo reaches precisely the opposite conclusion. And the documents provided by the carrier do not prove that the specific damage existing in the carried cargo was due to the cause of exoneration invoked. That suffices to assess the liability of the carrier.