In the absence of rebuttal the court will allow libelants' figures to stand. Manhattan Fruit Export Corp. v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., supra [D.C., 175 F. Supp. 771]. The one exception is the claim of Hunt Foods, which claim is in part contradicted by the testimony and survey report of Captain Jones. That claim appears to be excessive in the amount of $112.00. "Although it is probable that a portion of libelants' damages is attributable to an unavoidable peril of sweat, in the absence of a showing by respondent as to what portion is so attributable, it must bear the entire loss. Schnell v. The Vallescura, supra.
This case does not involve a situation where the carrier issued clean bills of lading, and thus libellant may satisfy his burden of proving good order and delivery to the carrier by admission into evidence of clean bills of lading. See Manhattan Fruit Export Corp. v. Royal Netherlands S.S. Co., 175 F. Supp. 771 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1958), rev'd. 271 F.2d 607 (2d Cir. 1959), cert. den. 363 U.S. 812, 80 S.Ct. 1249, 4 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1960).
The law casts the burden of explanation upon the carrier. He is prima facie liable for the damage unless he can affirmatively show that the cause is one for which the law does not hold him responsible. Schnell v. The Vallescura, 1934, 293 U.S. 296, 55 S.Ct. 194, 79 L.Ed. 373; Schroeder Bros., Inc. v. The Saturnia, 2 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 147; Manhattan Fruit Export Corp. v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1958, 175 F. Supp. 771. Hence, to avoid liability, respondent must prove that all reasonable precautions were taken to avoid the damage. Libelants contend that defects in respondent's loading and ventilating procedures caused their cargos to become wet from sweat and rain, the damage occurring as a consequence thereof.