Opinion ID: 199035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Good origin condition

Text: 17 In urging that Camar failed to establish a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment, Preston contends that Camar did not prove good origin condition. While DRMS's invitation to bid described the equipment as used--good condition, Preston maintains that this evidence is too vague and only reflects the condition of the goods at the time of the sale, not at the time Preston took control of them several weeks later. 3 18 We find adequate evidence of good condition for purposes of a prima facie case. The district court correctly reasoned that the purpose of demonstrating delivery to the carrier in good condition and arrival in damaged condition is to show an adverse change in the condition of the goods while they were in the carrier's custody, thus implying that whatever harm occurred was caused by the carrier. See Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 377 U.S. at 138 (stating that to rebut the prima facie case, a carrier must attribute the loss to a different cause). 19 Because the terms good and damaged are relative, Preston's suggestion that Camar must show good condition in absolute terms is unfounded. In the present case, the parties do not dispute that a change in the condition of the equipment occurred while Preston had custody of it: the equipment existed at the point of origin, was delivered by WestEx to Preston and then vanished in transit. In other words, the condition of the equipment was relatively good at the point of origin and relatively bad (nonexistent) at the point of arrival. 20 Camar Corp., 18 F. Supp.2d at 115. 21 We agree with the district court that Camar sufficiently demonstrated, for purposes of making out a prima facie case, that the condition at the time Preston took possession of the equipment was good. 4 We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Preston's liability under the Carmack Amendment.