Who Has to Produce the Evidence in a Cargo Claim?


Today the Supreme Court issued a judgment concerning the burden of proof in cargo claims. This case was about the carriage of bagged coffee in unventilated containers from South America to Northern Europe. During transit the cargo suffered condensation damage resulting from cargo sweat. The containers were prepared and stuffed by stevedores contracted by the carrier.

近期英国最高法院做出了一个关于货物索赔举证责任的判决。案涉货物系由封闭集装箱装运的袋装咖啡，在从南美运输至北欧途中，因冷凝水作用遭受湿损。装运货物的集装箱以及装箱操作均是由承运人委托的工班执行的。

The Supreme Court dealt with a narrow point arising under the Hague Rules: who bears the burden of proof in the context of a cargo claim not arising from unseaworthiness? The Supreme Court has clarified that, for all practical purposes, the common law liability of a carrier, unless modified by contract or subject to a cargo convention like the Hague Rules, is to take reasonable care of the goods.

最高法院就海牙规则下“非船舶不适航引起的货物索赔谁负举证责任”这一问题给出了他们的意见。最高法院明确，从航运实务出发，除非运输合同或国际规则如海牙规则中另有不同规定，承运人应承担照管货物的普通法义务。

The position under the Hague Rules was dealt with in two stages by the Supreme Court.

最高法院分两步阐述了“海牙规则”下的“举证责任”问题：

1. Article III, rule 2 of the Hague Rules deal with the obligations to “properly and carefully” transport goods. The Supreme Court decided that where cargo is shipped in apparent good order and condition, but is discharged damaged, the carrier must show either that the damage occurred without its fault in the various respects covered by Article III, rule 2.

1. 海牙规则第III条第2款规定了承运人负有适当和谨慎地运输货物的义务。最高法院认为如果货物装船时状况良好而卸货时发生了货损， 承运人必须依据海牙规则第III条第2款的规定举证其在各方面对货损的发生均无过错。

2. Article IV, rule 2 of the Hague Rules sets out a list of defences to a claim for breach of Article III, rule 2. When invoking most of those defences, the carrier has the legal burden of disproving any negligence on its part. In relation to the “inherent vice” defence at Article IV, rule 2(m) in particular, the carrier must show either it took reasonable care of the cargo but the damage occurred anyway, or that whatever reasonable steps might have been taken to protect the cargo from damage would have failed in the face of its inherent propensities.

2. 海牙规则第IV条第2款列举了针对违反海牙规则第III条第2款规定的货物索赔的抗辩理由。就绝大多数抗辩理由而言，承运人均负有举证证明其在货物照管方面不存在疏忽的法律责任。尤其是在援引第IV条第2款“固有瑕疵”抗辩事项时，承运人应该证明其已恪尽职责采取合理措施照管货物，但仍未能避免货损发生，或者承运人应该证明无论其采取何种合理措施照管货物，均无法避免发生货损的固有趋势。

Since the trial judge had not made findings on some key issues relating to how the containers were prepared, the carrier had failed to discharge its burden of proof and the cargo claims succeeded.

由于法院无法查明关涉集装箱操作的几项关键问题，故承运人未能完成其举证责任，法院进而支持了货方的货损索赔。

It is welcome to have clarity on this important issue. The full extent of any impact from the judgment will only be known after a period of time has passed and no doubt the decision will be subject to detailed analysis in subsequent cases.

最高法院就这一重要问题的澄清受到了普遍欢迎。该判决所能发挥的效用需要时间的检验，且毫无疑问，也会有后续案件进一步详细解读最高法院的这一判决。

The case serves to highlight the importance of creating accurate records throughout the period cargo is in the custody of carriers and of preserving evidence in relation to any potential cargo claim. Practical guidance can be found in the Club’s publication on the collection of evidence and in guides on particular types of cargo claims.

本案件强调了对处在承运人保管期间的货物留下准确货物照管记录的重要性，也明确了在潜在货损索赔案件中提供抗辩证据的必要性。有关搜集货损索赔抗辩证据的实践指南可以在协会发布的关于证据收集指南和特定类型货损索赔指南中找到。

A few points can be made about the limits of this decision.

就此判决，我们也可以看出以下几点内容：

1. Nature of carrier’s obligation under Article III, rule 2: the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case reviewed the authorities on the nature of the carrier’s obligation under Article III, rule 2. The Court of Appeal stated it is well-established that the obligation to care for and carry the goods “properly” under Article III, rule 2 means “in accordance with a sound system”. The law does not require the carrier to employ a system which is guaranteed to avoid damage nor is there an obligation to ensure goods arrive in an undamaged condition at their destination. The carrier is to adopt a system which is sound in light of all the knowledge which a carrier has or ought to have about the nature of the goods. It does not mean a system which is suitable for all the weaknesses of a particular cargo. One indicator of a sound system is that it is in accordance with general industry practice. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s judgment changes that summary of the law.

1. 第III条第2款规定的承运人义务的性质：就第III条第2款所规定的承运人义务的性质问题，上诉法院回顾审查了这方面的先例。指出，第III条第2款所要求的“适当”照管和运输货物的义务应该以“合理”为标准。法律并没有要求承运人采用一套能够绝对确保避免货损的机制，且承运人也没有义务保证货物完好无损地运抵目的地。根据承运人对货物性质所具有或应当具备的认知，承运人采取合理措施照管货物即可。也就是说，承运人所采取的措施不需要涵盖特定货物的所有薄弱环节。措施是否合理是以其是否符合一般的行业惯例为评判标准的。最高法院的判决亦没有改变此种法律地位。

2. Standard of proof: Where the carrier bears the burden of proof, it will be required to demonstrate those facts required to discharge its burden on the balance of probabilities (i.e. whether something was more likely than not to have occurred). Volcafe v. CSAV is not a case about the weight a judge or arbitrator might attach to the available evidence.

2. 举证标准：当承运人承担举证责任时，其需要证明到哪种可能性更大即可（即某事实存在的可能性是否大于不存在）。 Volcafe诉CSAV案并不是展现法官或仲裁员如何评判案涉证据方面的参考案例。

3. Evidential Burden: Cargo interests remain under an evidential burden to show that (a) cargo was loaded in apparent good order and condition and (b) that it was discharged damaged.

3. 举证责任：货损索赔方在以下两个方面依然负有举证责任：（a）货物装载时状况良好，（b）货物卸载时已被损坏。

4. Seaworthiness: Nothing in the Volcafe v. CSAV judgment impacts on cases involving an allegation that there was a failure to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy at the commencement of a voyage in breach of Article III, rule 1. Cargo interests retain the burden of proving causative unseaworthiness.

4. 船舶适航性：Volcafe v.CSAV判决中没有任何内容影响到如下情形的举证责任分配，即在航程开始时承运人违反了第III条第1款规定而没有尽到使船舶适航的尽职义务。货损索赔方负有举证责任以证明货损与船舶不适航存在因果关系。

5. Loading, handling, stowage and discharge: This decision does not cast doubt on the analysis in The Jordan II that The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules do not require the carrier to perform loading, handling, stowage or discharge operations. It is only insofar as the carrier agrees to carry out any of the functions mentioned in Article III, rule 2, that he agrees to perform them “properly and carefully” / with “reasonable care”.

5. 装载、处置、积载和卸载：本案判决并非质疑“约旦二号”中海牙和海牙维斯比规则不要求承运人进行装载、处置、积载或卸载作业的剖析。只有在合同约定了承运人履行第III条第2款规定的任何职责的情况下，他才具有“适当和谨慎地”及“合理谨慎”地履行这些职责的义务。

6. Article IV defences: The Volcafe v. CSAV judgment requires the carrier to disprove negligence in order to rely on many of the Article IV defences. However evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier will not defeat the nautical fault exception (Article IV, rule 2(a)) or, as per the decision of the High Court in The Lady M, the fire defence (Article IV, rule 2(b)).

6. 第IV条抗辩：Volcafe诉CSAV判决要求承运人反证其不存在疏忽，以便更多援引第IV条的抗辩条款。但是承运人存在疏忽不妨碍其援引航海过失免责（第IV条，第2（a）款），或根据高等法院的Lady M案判决援引火灾免责（第IV条第2（b）款）。

By: North of England P. & I. Association