The plaintiff claimed for damage to a cargo of melons and watermelons carried in seven containers from Manzanillo, Panama, to the port of Valencia, Spain. The containers left Manzanillo on 11 April 2013 and arrived at their destination on 6 May 2013, reporting a transit time of 24 days. The cargo interest alleged that the cause of the damage was inadequate temperature and delay in the delivery of the cargo.  

The carrier alleged that the delay was caused by a strike of the stevedores at the port of Valencia between 29 April and 1 May 2003 that obliged it to deviate to the port of Livorno, Italy, to return later to the port of Valencia. The carrier invoked arts 4.2 and 4.4 of the Hague-Visby rules, which was the applicable law to the contract. It asserted that it was allowed to deviate to another port because of the strike at the port of Valencia. Hence, the defendant alleged that this deviation was reasonable and exonerated it from liability. Furthermore, the defendant alleged inherent vice of the cargo and that cl 8.3 of the bill of lading stated that the carrier does not guarantee a specific transit time.

The Maritime Court dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Held: The Civil Branch of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, upheld the decision, but not on the same reasoning as the lower court. The SCJ noted that the cargo interest did not report the damage to the carrier within three days after delivery in compliance with art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby rules. Such omission obliged the claimant to bear the burden of proof that the damage was caused by the carrier, which it failed to prove. First, the SCJ asserted that there was no evidence that the damage was caused by a fluctuation of the temperature. On the contrary, the evidence available showed that the temperature provided was within the acceptable range for this kind of cargo. The plaintiff had also not succeeded in discounting the possibility of inherent vice of the cargo, as it did not submit evidence that the fruit was in good order and condition before it was delivered to the carrier.

Regarding the delay in the delivery, the SCJ accepted the carrier’s argument that the delay was due to an excepted cause. According to art 4.2.j of the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier is released from liability for damages caused by strikes or lockouts, in this case, in the port of Valencia. In addition, according to art 4.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier is not liable for any reasonable deviation. The SCJ stated that the deviation from the normal route to the port of Livorno was reasonable due to the stevedores' strike at the port of Valencia. Therefore, the carrier could not be held liable for the over-maturation of the cargo due to the alleged delay in its delivery.