Some older decisions have held that the carrier,in order to rebut the presumption of liability resulting from the arrival in damaged condition of GOODs shipped undamaged,must prove not only that the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils,but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the carrier's part.
Most more recent decisions and authors,however,uphold the view that,in general,the carrier may rebut the claimant's prima facie case simply by proving that the loss was caused by an excepted peril.At that point,the onus switches to the cargo claimant to prove that the true cause of the loss was the carrier's negligence.
Nevertheless certain Hague and Hague/Visby Rules exceptions,expressly or implicitly,also require the carrier to negative its own negligence in proving the exception itself.For example,a clause in the said rules expressly imposes on the carrier the burden of proving that the loss or damage occurred without its actual fault or privity and without any fault or neglect on the part of its servants or agents.
The carrier,however,must truly prove the existence of one or more of the exceptions and their causative role in respect of the loss or damage.Conjectures and speculation do not take the place of hard evidence.A court has held:“Mere speculation will not overcome the prima facie evidence of a clean bill of lading”.
问题:
The carrier will be held liable for the loss or damage if _______.
A.it is proved that he has privity to the loss or damage
B.it is proved that the fault or neglect on his part is not the true cause of the loss or damage
C.it is too onerous for him to demonstrate that the loss or damage is caused by what is beyond his control
At 1100 UTC on 28 May 2003,the container vessel P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci and the yacht Wahkuna collided in the English Channel in poor visibility.
Each vessel had detected the other by radar when at a range of about 6 miles.The container ship was on a course of 255°(T)at a speed of 25 knots.The yacht was on the port bow of the container ship on a course of 012°(C)at a speed of 7.5 knots,and was due
In the situation referred to in this massage,the speed of P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci ________.
A.the carrier will not be responsible for the damage to a cargo contained in a container supplied by the carrier
B.the carrier will in no way be responsible for the damage to a cargo contained in a container supplied by the shipper
C.the carrier will be estopped from proving the insufficiency of packing of the GOODs within the container stuffed and sealed by the shipper even he has issued a clean bill of lading
D.by the principle of estoppel,the carrier will not be held responsible even the cargoes,such as antiques,furniture,porcelain and crystal,had been shipped in one container