## Facts

- Sony shipped a 40-foot aluminum container of stereo equipment from Kobe, Japan, to Long Beach, California, aboard the M/V *Sea-Land Endurance*.
- Sea-Land Service, Inc. was the carrier/owner; bills of lading incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA).
- The container was stowed on deck on the starboard side near the stern.
- During the voyage the vessel encountered severe weather; between midnight and 9:00 a.m. on March 16, 1984, the container and cargo were lost/destroyed overboard.
- Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Sony’s cargo insurer, paid the claim and sued as Sony’s subrogee.
- After trial, the district court found no evidence of unseaworthiness or incompetent ship management and found the loss was caused by weather alone.
- Sea-Land accepted responsibility for any vessel liability, and the vessel was dismissed as a separate defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether Sea-Land established the COGSA “peril of the sea” defense, relieving it of liability for the lost container.
2. Whether the district court misallocated COGSA burdens of proof by requiring Taisho to prove fault after Sea-Land invoked a statutory defense.
3. Whether the district court improperly considered Taisho’s status as an insurer in deciding liability.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Sea-Land.
- The court held the district court’s findings supported application of the COGSA peril-of-the-sea defense and were not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the burden was not misallocated; once the defense was supported, Taisho had to prove negligence or unseaworthiness contributing to the loss and failed to do so.
- The court rejected the claim that Taisho’s insurer status was improperly used to determine liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under COGSA, a carrier is not liable for cargo loss arising from “perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters.” 46 U.S.C. app. § 1304(2)(c).
- A cargo claimant generally makes a prima facie case by showing good-order delivery to the carrier and loss or nondelivery at outturn; the carrier may avoid liability by proving a statutory exception under § 1304(2).
- When the carrier produces evidence that a COGSA exception caused the loss, the burden returns to the cargo claimant to prove carrier negligence or unseaworthiness contributed to the loss.
- Whether established conditions constitute a “peril of the sea” is fact-intensive; appellate review is deferential and turns on clear-error review of the district court’s determination.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that extraordinary weather, without proof of unseaworthiness or crew fault, fell within COGSA’s peril-of-the-sea exception, and the subrogated insurer could not recover because it failed to show negligence or unseaworthiness contributed to the loss.


Taisho Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. M/V Sea-Land Endurance, 815 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir. 1987)