## Facts

- Custave (also reported as Gustave) Jahn and others shipped a large quantity of rice from Kobe, Japan, to New York on the steamship *Folmina* under a bill of lading calling for delivery in like good order and condition, subject to stated exceptions.
- The bill of lading excepted, among other things, “all and every the dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and canals and of navigation of whatever nature or kind,” and also stated the ship was “not liable for sweat, rust, decay, vermin, rain, or spray.”
- The rice was received on board in good order, but on discharge in New York a large part of the rice stowed on the starboard side of No. 3 hold was damaged.
- The damaged area extended downward from the upper tiers toward the bottom of the hold; the bottom itself was dry. The damage ran forward from near the after end of the hatchway toward the bulkhead and inboard several bags.
- The damage was attributed to water and the heat that followed. A majority of the lower court concluded the water was sea water.
- The evidence did not show the vessel encountered weather or other external sea conditions severe enough to support an inference that sea water entered because of extraordinary outside forces.
- There was no evidence of negligence, fault, or error by the ship’s officers or crew; the cargo was found to have been well stowed and ventilated.
- The *Folmina* was described as a steel steamship of the highest class in Lloyd’s Register and had been dry-docked and surveyed before the voyage.
- The cargo owners filed a libel in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; that court dismissed the libel.
- On appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court under § 6 of the Judiciary Act of 1891.

## Issues

1. Whether damage to cargo on an apparently seaworthy ship through the unexplained admission of sea water, with no proof of fault by the officers or crew, is of itself a sea peril within the meaning of a “dangers and accidents of the seas” exception in the bill of lading.
2. Whether, in consequence of that exception, the ship is relieved from liability.

## Decision

- The Court answered the first certified question **No**: proving that sea water damaged the cargo, without proof of the external sea-related cause of the entry, does not by itself establish an excepted “danger or accident of the seas.”
- The Court **declined to answer** the second certified question because it did not present a distinct question of law and, in substance, called for decision of the whole case.

## Legal Principles

- When cargo is received in good order under a bill of lading requiring delivery in like good order and is delivered damaged, the carrier bears the burden to show the loss was caused by an excepted peril for which the carrier is not responsible.
- The fact that sea water caused the damage does not alone prove the loss resulted from a “peril of the sea” within a perils-of-the-sea (or “dangers and accidents of the seas”) exception; the carrier must show a qualifying cause, not merely the presence of sea water.
- Conjecture cannot substitute for proof when the carrier seeks to bring the loss within a contractual exception; if the cause remains uncertain on the record, the carrier has not met its burden.
- On certification under the Judiciary Act of 1891, the Supreme Court may refuse to answer a certified question that is not a discrete legal issue and instead effectively asks the Court to determine ultimate liability.

## Conclusion

*The Folmina* holds that a carrier cannot escape liability under a perils-of-the-sea exception merely by showing that cargo damage was caused by sea water when the entry of sea water is unexplained and not tied to proven external sea forces; the carrier must prove facts that place the loss within the stated exception, and the Supreme Court will not answer a certified question framed to decide the entire case rather than a distinct point of law.


*The Folmina*, 212 U.S. 354 (1909)

The Folmina, 212 U.S. 354 (1909)