Royal & Sun Alliance Seguros Uruguay SA (the plaintiff), acting under an assignment of rights, claimed for short shipment of cargo loaded into a container provided by Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) and carried from Colonia to Montevideo in Uruguay by Transur Ltda. MOL contracted Cargas y Servicios SA to carry the container from Montevideo, Uruguay, to Buenos Aires, Argentina. At the destination, the cargo within the container was found to have been replaced with bricks. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against MOL and Cargas y Servicios SA.

The first instance Court admitted the claim and ordered the two defendants to pay compensation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision and released Cargas y Servicios SA from liability. MOL recurred the decision in cassation before the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), alleging an infraction of art 4 of the Hague Rules. MOL argued that according to the Hague Rules, the carrier only had to prove the occurrence of a cause of exoneration. It is the claimant who has to prove that the incident occurred because of 'a negligent act of commercial character' committed by the carrier or its servants, excluding acts of a nautical character (including an act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship under art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules). MOL alleged that it had proved an exonerative cause because it was a undisputed fact, and was acknowledged in the decision, that the cargo was stolen and replaced in the national territory. Hence, that could only have occurred before the cargo was loaded onto the ship. MOL only assumed responsibility for the cargo from that moment, and the cargo was not in the container when it was loaded. It invoked an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, its agent or representative (art 4.2.i of the Hague Rules). The claimant did not prove that the damage resulted from the carrier's fault. MOL also alleged incorrect assessment of the evidence regarding the liability of Cargo y Servicios SA. The latter company had admitted that it had responsibility for the container when it was in the port of Montevideo, where the container was placed in an inadequate area that lacked a proper security system, and where the theft presumably occurred.

Held: The SCJ dismissed the recourse. The SCJ stated that the evidence submitted did not prove that the theft occurred while the container was at the port. It was uncontroverted that the theft happened in the territory of Uruguay. Nonetheless, doubt as to who had the custody of the cargo at that moment suggests that the carrier's objective liability cannot be considered to be vitiated by the occurrence of an external cause. The container should have been placed in the container yard, but it was left in an area next to the pier where the ship docked the day after. However, there was no evidence of a lack of vigilance and the sophisticated operation to extract the cargo could not be executed at the port premises without being noticed. The carrier's responsibility is not limited to the voyage when the cargo is being transported. It starts when the carrier receives and accepts the cargo and ends with its delivery at the destination in the hands of the consignee. Before the actual delivery, the carrier is charged with an obligation of result. Furthermore, the appellant stated in the proceedings that the theft had occurred during the land leg of the transport from Colonia to Montevideo, which excludes any liability on the part of Cargas y Servicios SA.