Sorveglianza sued the carrier Romano, claiming cargo damage after the ship's allision with a quay in Assab, Eritrea. Romano relied on art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules, which provides for nautical fault as an exemption of carrier liability. The Court of Appeal held that the negligence of the master and the crew in monitoring the conditions of the holds after the collision represented an instance of commercial fault, as it violated the carrier's duty to properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried, which in the contract of carriage is one of the carrier's primary obligations under art 3.2 of the Hague Rules.

Romano appealed the decision in cassation.

Held: The appeal in cassation is dismissed.

The Court recalled that under US COGSA 1936, art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules, and the Italian Code of Navigation, the notion of commercial fault is to be distinguished 'by exclusion' from the notion of nautical fault. Nautical fault includes the fault of the master and the crew in their duties of an extremely professional character (fault in navigation), such as unsuitable anchorage, or mistakes in manoeuvres and routes. It also includes the failures of the master and the crew regarding the maintenance of those parts of the vessel that concern seaworthiness (fault in the management of the ship), such as maintenance of the functioning of the hull, the engines, and the anchors.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that other kinds of fault of the master and crew corresponded to commercial fault regarding those parts of the ship that pertained to its commercial use, such as the refrigerating or cool chambers and the holds.

The Court also highlighted the distinction between the enterprises of navigation and commercial use of the ship, noting that nautical fault implies the fault of the master and the crew as auxiliaries of the enterprise of navigation, and commercial fault implies the fault of the master and the crew as auxiliaries of the enterprise of commercial use of the ship.

In conclusion, the Court held that the fault of the master and the crew in this case constituted commercial fault, and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.