The carrier, Ditta Carlo Genovese (DCG), carried a cargo of corn from Argentina to Italy on the Rio Belgrano. Sorveglianza SpA (S) sued DCG, as the cargo was found to have been damaged. DCG appealed the first instance order to pay compensation to the Court of Appeal of Naples. DCG argued that the cargo was already affected by humidity and not in a good condition on loading, and that a storm had occurred during the voyage. DCG further relied on the excepted peril of nautical fault under art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules to be exempted from liability and shift the burden of proof of the carrier's fault onto S.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

As to the condition of the cargo, the Court emphasised that DCG did not provide any convincing or concrete basis for its allegation of 'inherent vice', and that its conduct in this regard was contrary to the usages of international markets. The percentage of humidity in the corn did not constitute, as DCG argued, a serious impediment to transport by sea - it was well controlled and containable. Moreover, the master did not enter any reservations when issuing the bill of lading. This implied that the master believed that the carrier could fulfil its duties, considering that the ship was usually utilised for those types of cargo. The Court also noted that in Argentina, a major exporter of grain, a certificate of quality must be issued after inspections undertaken on board by representatives of the Junta Nacional De Granos before the vessel leaves.

There was also no evidence of a storm. The master's report did not even mention that the vessel had encountered heavy seas.

Regarding the excepted peril of nautical fault, the Court pointed out that under art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules, this consists of strictly professional faults of the master and the crew in the navigation and the management of the ship, such as unsuitable anchorage, mistakes in manoeuvres or routes, and issues about the functioning of the ship's engines. On the contrary, the Court found the holds were unsuitable for carrying the cargo, in that they allowed water from the bilges to seep into the cargo. Failure to pump the bilges is an example of the commercial fault of the master and the crew, ie any other form of fault not included in the notion of nautical fault. This type of fault concerns the commercial use of the ship (eg in relation to hoists, cold rooms, airtightness of the holds, ventilation etc). That is related to the duty of the master and crew and, therefore, of the carrier, to properly guard the cargo and to safeguard it from the foreseeable and avoidable action of harmful elements, in order to deliver it to the consignee in conditions of perfect conservation and use.