Bally, Inc. v. M/V Zim America
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
22 F.3d 65, 1994 AMC 2762 (1994)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Bally, Inc. (plaintiff) was a consignee shipping two containers of leather goods from Italy to New York on the M/V Zim America, a cargo vessel owned by Zim Israel Navigation Co., Ltd. (Zim) (defendants). The goods were loaded into the containers and the containers sealed under the supervision of a freighting agency employed by Bally. At that point, the number of cartons in each container and the weight of the containers were recorded, and those amounts matched the information provided on the manufacturers’ invoices. The sealed containers were delivered to the Zim America and transported to New York. The containers were then unloaded and delivered to Maypo Trucking Company (Maypo), a trucking company hired by Bally. Maypo saw that the seals on the containers were intact but did not weigh the containers or inspect them further. Maypo stored the containers in the port overnight and drove them to Bally’s warehouse the next day. When the containers were unloaded, it was discovered that 65 cartons were missing from one of the containers. Approximately three weeks later, Bally sent Zim a claim for the loss. Zim denied responsibility for the loss, and Bally filed a Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) claim in federal court against Zim. The district court held that Bally had established a prima facie case for recovery under COGSA and awarded damages to Bally. Zim appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.