UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 95-20877
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
KLOCKNER STEEL TRADE USA INC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
M/V IOLCOS LEGEND, ET AL,
Defendants,
IOLCOS HELLENIC MARITIME ENTERPRISES CO LTD;
SUPERWAY SHIPPING, Ltd,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-94-CV-393)
August 5, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Klockner Steel sued defendants M/V IOLCOS LEGEND,
Iolcos Hellenic Maritime Enterprises, and Superway Shipping for
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
damages to a steel shipment under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,
46 U.S.C. §§ 1300-1315 (“COGSA”). After a bench trial, the
district court concluded that the defendants were jointly and
severally liable for the damages that occurred in the shipment of
the steel cargo. Defendants appeal, alleging multiple points of
error.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error, and its conclusions of law de novo. Switzer v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 52 F.3d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1995). To establish a
prima facie case under COGSA, the plaintiff must show that the
shipper took charge of the cargo in good condition, and that the
cargo was damaged upon delivery. Blasser Brothers v. Northern Pan-
American Line, 628 F.2d 376, 381 (5th Cir. 1980). Clean bills of
lading will establish that the cargo was given to the shipper in
good condition. Id. Once the plaintiff presents a prima facie
case, the carrier may only avoid liability by showing that it
“exercised due diligence to prevent the damage, or that the harm
was occasioned by one of the excepted causes delineated in 46
U.S.C. § 1304(2).” Id.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court did not err in finding that the bills of lading were
clean,2 and that the plaintiff had established its prima facie case
2
Despite references on the bills of lading indicating that the steel
contained some rust, plaintiff presented ample evidence that those demarcations
referred only to atmospheric or fresh water rust, which does not damage hot-
-2-
under COGSA. We further hold that the district court did not err
in concluding that the defendants failed to prove that they
exercised due diligence in making the ship seaworthy. See id. at
382 (noting that carrier has “legal responsibility to make the ship
seaworthy” and to make it “fit and safe for the reception, carriage
and preservation of the goods”). In addition, the district court
did not err in finding that the defendants failed to prove that the
harm was occasioned by one of the excepted causes delineated in 46
U.S.C. § 1304(2). See id. at 381-82 & n.6 (setting forth the
statutory exceptions, such as negligence of the master, act of God,
or peril of the sea, which may insulate a carrier from COGSA
liability). Finally, we hold that the district court’s damage
calculation was amply supported by the record and applicable case
law.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
rolled steel. See Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S EUROUNITY, 21 F.3d 533, 538 (2d Cir.
1994) (holding that plaintiff had established its prima facie case because
testimony established that rust exceptions in the bills of lading referred only
to atmospheric rust which does not affect the value of the steel).
-3-