Court Opinion

ID: 9640024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:55:42.461588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:25.311799
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)-
Because I believe the opinion of the majority of this court to be inconsistent with the basic principle underlying the Harter Act, and because the effect of the holding in the instant case seems to me to limit severely the doctrine enunciated in Schnell v. The Vallescura, 1934, 293 U.S. 296, 55 S.Ct. 194, 79 L.Ed. 373, I am compelled to dissent.
As is stated in the opinion of the majority of this court, the loss of contents from •seven barrels was ascertained prior to the delivery to the rail carrier. The testimony of both the customs officer and the ship’s agent indicates that these barrels remained in the sole custody of appellee until the shipment was delivered to- the rail carrier.1 Moreover, the recoopering was performed at the instance of the ship’s agent.
Under the circumstances, is it logical to place the burden of establishing the cause of the loss upon any one other than appellee,- the custodian of the shipment?- To guarantee, if not enlarge, the shipper’s' rights in cases like that sub judice, it seems to me, was precisely the purpose of the Harter Act, which not only nullified any contractual provisions designed to relieve the carried'of liability for its negligence, but also provided in substance that the carrier has “the burden of the loss which he [the carrier] cannot explain or, explaining, bring within the exceptional case in which he is relieved from liability.” Schnell v. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. at page 304, 55 S. Ct. page 196; emphasis supplied.
If the foregoing statement in the Schnell case is a correct exposition of the law, then it must mean that' appellee had the burden of going forward with proof of the cause of the loss. This view, indeed, is in conformance with Section 3 of the Harter Act, relieving a carrier of liability only when that carrier brings itself within one of the exceptions specified therein. Among the enumerated exceptions are “the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of package, * * * or for loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods.” Appellee has introduced no such proof in *339the case at bar. May appellee shift the burden through the technique of a stamped notation on the bill, of lading, when the shipper has no control and only speculative opportunity for discovering the cause of loss? It should be noted that “leakage,” just as “decay” in the Schnell case, is an effect, and not a cause. What caused the leakage in the case at bar? If the cause was “the inherent defect * * * of the thing carried,” for example, does not Section 3 of the Harter Act require appellee to establish that fact?
I cannot escape the conclusion that appellee has neither an inherent nor a statutory right, through the device of a statement like that on the bill of lading here in evidence, to assign to a shipper the responsibility for proving negligence. While appellee has proved due care prior to the unloading and that no loss occurred in the ship, appellee has come forward with no information concerning the vital period of time between the unloading and the delivery to the rail carrier, during which interval the loss evidently occurred. Since appellee has not shown the cause of the leakage during that interval to be other than its own negligence, I believe the decree dismissing the libel should be reversed.

 The customs officer stated that “ * * * report of the inspector shows the quantity contained in seven barrels at the time they were transferred from the custody of the * * * steamship company to the custody of the domestic customs bonded carrier * * * ”
The ship’s agent testified as follows:
“Q. And who were the consignees in connection with the seventy barrels that we are discussing this morning, if you know? A. Park Benziger & Company.
“Q. Did you actually make delivery to them? A. To their agents.
“Q. Do you know who the agents were? A. In this case, the receiving agents, the Pennsylvania Railroad,
“Q. And did someone in your organization see to it that the delivery was made to the railroad? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Do you know who that was? A. From this tally card it would be D. P. Krogman.
“Q. Wduld that be part of Mr. Krogman’s duties at that time, so far as you know? A. Yes, sir.”