Source: http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/3rddaewoo.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 05:22:17
Document Index: 692122925

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1300', '§ 1333', '§ 1291', '§ 1300', '§ 1303', '§ 1303', '§ 1303', '§ 1303', '§ 1303', '§ 1304', '§ 1303', 'art:\n46', '§ 1303', '§ 1303', '§ 1303']

Daewoo v. Sea-Land Orient (3d Cir. 1999)
*SEA-LAND ORIENT LTD.; *SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC.; WICE MARINE SERVICES, LTD.
(D.C. Civil No. 97-608)
ROUND-THE-WORD (U.S.A.) CORP.; *EVERGREEN LINES, INC.; *EVERGREEN MARINE CORP.
*EVERGREEN MARINE CORP.,
*UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; *SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD; *CSX RAILROAD,
(D.C. Civil No. 97-624)
Daewoo International (America) Corp.,
*Sea-Land Orient, Ltd., Sea-Land Services, Inc., Evergreen Lines, Inc., Evergreen Marine Corp., Union Pacific Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad, and CSX Railroad dismissed pursuant to Court's order dated February 22, 1999
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 97-cv-00608/624) District Judge: Honorable John W. Bissell (97-608) District Judge: Honorable Alfred J. Lechner, Jr. (97-624)
(Opinion filed November 19, 1999)
Martin B. Mulroy, Esquire (Argued) 478 State Route 28, Suite 444 Bridgewater, NJ 08807
Wayne D. Greenfeder, Esquire Kraemer, Burns, Mytelka, Lovell & Kulka 675 Morris Avenue, 3rd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081
Nicholas Kalfa, Esquire (Argued) Deborah R. Reid, Esquire James J. Ruddy, Esquire Badiak, Will & Maloof, LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 1040 New York, NY 10271
Attorneys for Appellee Wice Marine Services, Ltd.
Peter D. Clark, Esquire James R. Sanislow, Esquire Gregory G. Barnett, Esquire (Argued) Clark, Atcheson & Reisert 535 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017
Attorneys for Appellee Round-The-World (U.S.A.) Corp.
1. Honorable Monroe G. McKay, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
ROTH, Circuit Judge .
Daewoo International (America) Corporation purchased over one million plastic videocassette tape holders from Hang Fung Technology Manufacturing Company of Hong Kong. When Daewoo received the shipment in the United States and opened the containers, it found nothing but cement blocks. The common carriers, Round-The-World (USA) Corporation ("RTW") and Wice Marine Services Limited, when they issued the bills of lading, had received no notice of any problems. This case presents the question whether, under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 App.U.S.C.A. § 1300 et seq. , a common carrier, with no notice that anything is awry, is obligated to inspect a sealed shipment before issuing a bill of lading. We hold that no such duty exists.
The District Court denied Daewoo's motion, granted RTW's and Wice's cross-motions, and dismissed the complaint. It determined that Daewoo had failed to establish a prima facie case under COGSA because it did _________________________________________________________________
2. Daewoo's agents did not immediately break the seals and inspect every container upon delivery. Although most or all of the containers were delivered in February 1996, some were not opened and inspected until March 22, 1996.
3. Daewoo also sued in a separate action ocean carriers Sea-Land Orient Limited, Sea-Land Services Incorporated, Evergreen Lines Incorporated, and Evergreen Marine Corporation. Although the two suits were consolidated, this appeal concerns only defendants RTW and Wice.
not prove that the goods were delivered to the carriers in good condition. Daewoo's only evidence was the bills of lading. In the court's opinion, this did not prove the contents of the sealed containers, which were not ascertainable from the outside.
Daewoo appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.5 Our standard of review is plenary. See Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania v. M/T Carisle , 771 F.2d 805, 812 (3d Cir. 1985). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. C IV. P. 56(c).
COGSA regulates the carriage of goods by sea between U.S. and foreign ports. See 46 App.U.S.C.A.§§ 1300, 1312. A carrier of goods has the duty to "properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried." Id. § 1303(2). A carrier has the further duty of issuing a bill of lading which contains a description of the goods. Id. § 1303(3).4 That bill of lading serves as prima facie evidence that the carrier received the goods as described. Id. § 1303(4). When the carrier delivers the goods, the bill of lading constitutes prima facie evidence of the goods' delivery, unless the receiver gives notice at that time, or within three days if the loss or damage is not apparent. Id. § 1303(6).5
Under §§ 1303 and 1304, a cargo owner has to establish a prima facie case when it has demonstrated that the cargo was delivered to the carrier in good condition but was delivered by the carrier to the cargo owner in a short or damaged condition. See Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania , 771 F.2d at 810. Once the cargo owner has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the carrier. Id. One way for the carrier to meet its burden is to show that the loss or damage falls within one of the exceptions to liability in § 1304(2)(a)-(p). Id.
To establish that the cargo here was delivered to the carrier in good condition, Daewoo points to the bills of _________________________________________________________________
4. The statute provides in pertinent part:
(b) Either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity or weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper. (c) The apparent order and condition of the goods: Provided , That no carrier . . . shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.
46 App.U.S.C.A. § 1303(3).
5. The statute provides in pertinent part:
46 App.U.S.C. § 1303(6).
lading. It contends that the carriers should have inspected the cargo to verify that the information provided by Hang Fung was correct before they listed that information on their bills of lading. Daewoo argues that once the carriers listed the information on the bills of lading, they were responsible for any inaccuracies.
Although a bill of lading, attesting to the apparent good order and condition of the goods, normally constitutes prima facie evidence of the goods as described, see § 1303(4)(c), a bill of lading is not prima facie evidence of the contents of a sealed container because the contents are not discoverable from an external examination. Bally, Inc. v. M.V. Zim America , 22 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1994); Westway Coffee Corp. v. M.V. Netuno , 675 F.2d 30, 32-33 (2d Cir. 1982); Caemint Food, Inc. v. Brasileiro , 647 F.2d 347, 352 (2d Cir. 1981); see Plastique Tags, Inc. v. Asia Trans Line, Inc. , 83 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1996).
Unlike the contents of a sealed container, the weight of a container is usually "readily verifiable." See § 1303(c). A bill of lading, then, is prima facie proof that the carrier received that weight from the shipper. Bally , 22 F.3d at 69. This holds true regardless of limiting language, such as "said to weigh" and "shipper's load and count." Id. For this reason, carriers have been held liable in cases involving a shortage of cargo where the actual weight of cargo at outturn was _________________________________________________________________
6. Daewoo concedes that the containers held cement blocks even before they were delivered to RTW and Wice.
less than the weight listed on the bill of lading. See Westway Coffee Corp. , 675 F.2d at 31-32, 33.
Because Daewoo presented no evidence that the cargo was lost while in the carriers' possession, it cannot recover from RTW and Wice for its loss.7 _________________________________________________________________
7. We decline to reach Daewoo's estoppel argument.
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the decision