* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 95-20877

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

KLOCKNER STEEL TRADE USA INC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

M/V IOLCOS LEGEND, ET AL,

Defendants,

IOLCOS HELLENIC MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO LTD;

SUPERWAY SHIPPING, Ltd,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-393)

August 5, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Klockner Steel sued defendants M/V IOLCOS LEGEND,

Iolcos Hellenic Maritime Enterprises, and Superway Shipping for
2 Despite references on the bills of lading indicating that the steel

contained some rust, plaintiff presented ample evidence that those demarcations

referred only to atmospheric or fresh water rust, which does not damage hot-

-2-

damages to a steel shipment under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,

46 U.S.C. §§ 1300-1315 (“COGSA”). After a bench trial, the

district court concluded that the defendants were jointly and

severally liable for the damages that occurred in the shipment of

the steel cargo. Defendants appeal, alleging multiple points of

error. 

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error, and its conclusions of law de novo. Switzer v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 52 F.3d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1995). To establish a

prima facie case under COGSA, the plaintiff must show that the

shipper took charge of the cargo in good condition, and that the

cargo was damaged upon delivery. Blasser Brothers v. Northern PanAmerican Line, 628 F.2d 376, 381 (5th Cir. 1980). Clean bills of

lading will establish that the cargo was given to the shipper in

good condition. Id. Once the plaintiff presents a prima facie

case, the carrier may only avoid liability by showing that it

“exercised due diligence to prevent the damage, or that the harm

was occasioned by one of the excepted causes delineated in 46

U.S.C. § 1304(2).” Id. 

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the

district court did not err in finding that the bills of lading were

clean,2 and that the plaintiff had established its prima facie case
rolled steel. See Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S EUROUNITY, 21 F.3d 533, 538 (2d Cir.

1994) (holding that plaintiff had established its prima facie case because

testimony established that rust exceptions in the bills of lading referred only

to atmospheric rust which does not affect the value of the steel). 

-3-

under COGSA. We further hold that the district court did not err

in concluding that the defendants failed to prove that they

exercised due diligence in making the ship seaworthy. See id. at

382 (noting that carrier has “legal responsibility to make the ship

seaworthy” and to make it “fit and safe for the reception, carriage

and preservation of the goods”). In addition, the district court

did not err in finding that the defendants failed to prove that the

harm was occasioned by one of the excepted causes delineated in 46

U.S.C. § 1304(2). See id. at 381-82 & n.6 (setting forth the

statutory exceptions, such as negligence of the master, act of God,

or peril of the sea, which may insulate a carrier from COGSA

liability). Finally, we hold that the district court’s damage

calculation was amply supported by the record and applicable case

law. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.