## Facts

- Shippers delivered a cargo of onions in Spain for carriage by sea to New York under a bill of lading acknowledging receipt in apparent good condition.
- The bill of lading included exceptions for damage by “decay” and “perils of the seas,” and stated the damage was not due to negligence of the vessel or its agents.
- The onions arrived in New York damaged by decay.
- Evidence showed decay was caused by improper ventilation during the voyage.
- The ship’s hatches and ventilators were closed at times when heavy weather made closure necessary and also during fair weather due to crew neglect (including failure to keep ventilation open at night in fair weather).
- The district court found the vessel liable for damage caused by negligent closure in good weather and referred damages to a commissioner.
- The commissioner found it impossible to determine what portion of the decay was due to necessary closure in heavy weather versus negligent closure in fair weather and awarded full damages against the carrier.
- The court of appeals reversed, placing on the shippers the burden to segregate the damage attributable to negligence once an exception (decay) was implicated.

## Issues

1. Whether the Harter Act’s exemption for “fault or error in navigation or management of the vessel” applies to negligent care of cargo, including failure to ventilate perishable goods.
2. Whether a bill-of-lading exception for “decay” relieves a carrier from liability when decay is caused or aggravated by negligent stowage or negligent failure to care for the cargo.
3. When loss is caused partly by an excepted peril and partly by the carrier’s negligence, and the damage cannot be apportioned on the evidence, which party bears the burden and the risk of uncertainty.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the carrier liable for the full loss.
- The Harter Act § 3 exemption for “navigation or management” does not protect negligent failure to care for cargo during the voyage.
- A “decay” exception is construed to cover decay from inherent vice or excepted sea perils, not decay resulting from negligent stowage or negligent cargo care.
- Where both an excepted peril and negligence contributed and the evidence does not allow division, the carrier bears the burden to segregate the damage attributable to the excepted cause; failure to do so results in liability for the entire damage.

## Legal Principles

- A sea carrier that receives cargo in good order and delivers it damaged is liable unless it proves the loss falls within a valid exception.
- Contractual or common-law exceptions relieve a carrier only if the carrier exercised due care; contractual clauses cannot exculpate the carrier from negligence.
- The Harter Act’s “navigation or management” protection is distinct from, and does not extend to, negligent handling, stowage, or care of cargo.
- An exception for “decay” in perishable cargo does not shield a carrier from liability for decay caused or increased by negligent ventilation or other negligent cargo care.
- When damage is produced by a combination of an excepted cause and the carrier’s negligence and the harm is not reasonably divisible, the carrier must prove the portion attributable to the excepted cause; otherwise, the carrier bears the entire loss.

## Conclusion

The Court held that negligent cargo care is not excused by the Harter Act’s navigation-or-management exemption or by a bill-of-lading “decay” clause, and that when negligence and an excepted sea peril both contribute to an indivisible cargo loss, the carrier bears the burden of apportionment and is liable for the whole if it cannot segregate the damages.


Schnell v. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. 296 (1934)