Lekas & Drivas, Inc. v. Goulandris
306 F.2d 426 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), once a carrier demonstrates that cargo damage resulted from one of the specifically enumerated excepted causes in § 4(2)(a)-(p), such as 'restraint of princes', the burden of proof shifts to the shipper to establish that the carrier's negligence was a concurrent cause of the loss.
Facts:
- In October 1940, the SS. Ioannis P. Goulandris took on cargo, including cheese owned by Lekas & Drivas, Inc., for a planned 25-28 day voyage from Greece to the United States via Gibraltar.
- On October 28, 1940, Italy invaded Greece, creating wartime conditions that made the planned Mediterranean route impracticable.
- The Greek Government first requisitioned the vessel for a brief military mission and then ordered it to proceed to the U.S. via the much longer and hotter route around Africa's Cape of Good Hope.
- The vessel departed Piraeus on November 10, 1940, for what became a five-month voyage.
- During the voyage, the ship developed mechanical problems, forcing it to stop in Aden for 35 days for repairs.
- While in Aden, the cheese cargo was unloaded and stored on lighters covered with tarpaulins, as no warehouse facilities were available.
- When the cheese was reloaded after the repairs were complete, the ship's chief officer observed that it was already spoiling, leaking, and developing an odor.
- Upon arrival in the U.S. in May 1941, the cheese was found to be melted, worthless, and emitting a terrible stench.
Procedural Posture:
- Lekas & Drivas, Inc., Pompeian Olive Oil Corporation, and Victor Cory Company filed libels (lawsuits in admiralty) against the ship's owners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for cargo damage.
- The trial was significantly delayed due to World War II and for coordination with other similar cases.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found for the libelants, awarding damages for the damaged cheese and olive oil.
- The ship owners (respondents) appealed the judgment in favor of the cheese and olive oil owners to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), once a carrier proves that the 'restraint of princes' exception was a cause of cargo damage, does the burden of proof shift to the shipper to establish that the carrier's negligence also contributed to the loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Once a carrier establishes that cargo damage was caused by a 'restraint of princes,' the burden shifts to the shipper to prove that the carrier's separate negligence contributed to the loss. The court reasoned that the government-ordered diversion of the voyage due to war constituted a 'restraint of princes' under COGSA § 4(2)(g). This rerouting, which transformed a short, cool voyage into a long, hot one, was the superseding cause of the cheese spoiling, as the unrefrigerated cheese would have spoiled regardless of where it was stowed. The court distinguished the specifically enumerated exceptions in COGSA § 4(2)(a)-(p) from the catch-all exception in § 4(2)(q). Unlike the catch-all, where the carrier must prove its own freedom from fault, a carrier invoking a specific exception like 'restraint of princes' shifts the burden to the shipper to prove negligence. Here, Lekas & Drivas failed to carry that burden, as they did not prove the master was negligent for failing to obtain refrigeration that was unavailable in wartime Aden or for failing to sell the cheese when the evidence was unclear as to when the spoilage was discovered. Therefore, the carrier is exonerated from liability for the cheese.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the burden-shifting framework under COGSA for the enumerated exceptions in § 4(2)(a)-(p). By explicitly separating the proof requirements for these specific exceptions from the catch-all provision, the court reinforced that the carrier does not have to disprove its own negligence once it has established that a specific peril caused the loss. This ruling makes it more difficult for shippers to recover damages when a loss is connected to a major event like war or a peril of the sea, as the onus falls squarely on the shipper to affirmatively prove the carrier's concurrent negligence. The case also underscores the importance of causation, illustrating that a carrier's potentially negligent act will not lead to liability if the damage would have occurred anyway due to an excepted cause.
Unlock the full brief for Lekas & Drivas, Inc. v. Goulandris