In June 1988, Cerealmangimi SpA (C), which later merged with Continentale Italiana SpA (CI), the consignee under a bill of lading, sued Adriatic Shipping Co (AS), together with Transpedi di Sante Schiavon & Figli (TSSF) as agents of Losinjska Plovidba, in the Tribunal of Venice, claimed for damage caused by contamination and short delivery of a cargo of sorghum carried from Port Sudan, Sudan, to Venice and Ravenna, Italy, on the Mirna.

AS, as the agent of Trinos Shipping Co (TS), contested the claim. In July 1988, C sued AS and TSSF again, as the agents of TS. In February 1993, the Tribunal of Venice dismissed the claim relating to contamination of the goods, and upheld the claim of short delivery. AS and CI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of Venice, which dismissed their appeals and counter-appeals. AS and CI appealed and counter-appealed in cassation. In particular, CI argued that under the Italian Code of Navigation, the presumption of liability of the carrier for loss or damage of the cargo comes into play in case of the personal fault of the carrier or the commercial fault of its auxiliaries, but fails if the event was not caused by the fault of the shipper or its auxiliaries. However, the carrier needs to provide evidence of its exemption from liability, and this was not the case for AS.

Held: CI's appeal in cassation is dismissed.

Concerning the short delivery, the Court noted that there was no evidence that CI suffered economic loss because of the discrepancy between the lesser quantity of sorghum delivered and the sorghum loaded.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the carrier is exempt from liability for cargo loss or damage under the Italian Code of Navigation and art 4 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules in case of excepted perils. The Court also recalled the notion of atypical excepted perils under art 4.2.q of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules. Moreover, the Court emphasised that the carrier needs to prove the causal link between the damage and the event.

The Court also observed that the carrier's fault was already proved in the previous proceedings through technical evaluations and the admission of the parties. Therefore, the burden of proof fell on the consignee to prove that the carrier's specific fault caused the cargo damage. The Court finally highlighted that CI did not provide evidence of this.