This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 10 June 2010. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd (Zim) undertook the sea transport of containers containing float glass from Quindao (China) to Istanbul (Türkiye). The goods arrived at their destination on 19 July 2005. Damage was notified on 27 July 2005. Generali IARD (Generali), subrogated into the rights of Continental, compensated the receiver appearing on the bill of lading and then sued Zim. The Court of Appeal ordered Zim to pay Generali the equivalent in EUR of USD 65,012.38.

Zim appealed, arguing that neither the carrier nor the ship is responsible for loss and damage resulting from insufficient packaging. The damage certificate drawn up on 9 August 2005 at the request of Generali noted insufficient packaging. The Court of Appeal did not draw the correct legal consequences of its own findings and violated art 4.2.n of the Hague-Visby Rules. By merely stating that this report called into question 'insufficient packaging and poor stacking', even though the findings of the expert were very precisely detailed, the Court of Appeal distorted by omission the aforementioned expert report and violated art 1134 of the Civil Code.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The judgment did not find that the expert noted insufficient packaging in the damage certificate of 9 August 2005. Zim's appeal tends, under cover of the unfounded complaint of violation of the law, only to call into question before the Court of Cassation the assessment of the evidence by which the Court of Appeal considered that Zim could not avail itself of the report, the free translation of which from the Turkish language into the French language was partial, and whose findings were made by the expert on 27 December 2005, after the unloading of the goods on 19 July 2005.