Resumen de Hague Rules and Burden of Proof: Volcafe v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores
The Court of Appeal decision in Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA 1 is principally of interest for its observations on the shifting burden of proof in cargo claims against carriers. Though bailment principles continue to exert an influence, even in the era of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, that influence has been lessened if the decision is correct. There are also observations on the meaning of inherent vice, and on the relationship between inherent vice and the carrier’s duty properly and carefully to “load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge” the cargo, under Art.III(2) of the Hague Rules. The case involved a container stuffed some distance inland, and there is also consideration of the temporal application of the Hague Rules, in particular the start of their operation. In all respects but the last, the carrier’s argument was preferred to that of the cargo owners. Facts, issues and decision The dispute arose from the carriage of coffee beans in nine consignments of unventilated containers from Columbia to northern Europe. In each case, the stuffing of the containers (which the carriers had undertaken to perform) occurred up to 11 days prior to shipment. 2 As was accepted can happen when coffee beans are carried unventilated from hot to cold climates, condensation occurred inside the containers, and there was water damage to the beans in all but two of the containers. 3 The beans were not alleged by the carrier to be unusual or atypical in any respect. The damage was relatively slight, and the dispute was apparently litigated as a test case. 4 For each consignment, the bill of lading incorporated the Hague Rules, and the issue was as to the carrier’s liability for the water damage. The carrier claimed that the loss was caused by inherent vice of the cargo, an excepted peril. He had lined the containers with kraft paper to absorb moisture, though there were factual issues as to its depth. 5 He had not used corrugated paper, which was argued to be more effective. The cargo owners
