BNUMBER:  B-260768
DATE:  December 28, 1995
TITLE:  Towne International Forwarding, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Towne International Forwarding, Inc.

File:     B-260768

Date:   December 28, 1995

DIGEST

A carrier failed to unroll and inspect a service member's carpet when 
it obtained it from a nontemporary storage (NTS) contractor; 
therefore, it missed the opportunity to issue a rider noting any dry 
rot, mildew, or insect damage that may have existed at that time.  
Without such a rider, the carrier does not meet its burden to prove 
that these damages occurred during storage, and not during transit, 
when the carrier's remaining evidence consists only of:  an 
appraiser's opinion (stated several months after delivery) that the 
carpet had become wet during storage; the comparative amount of time 
that carrier had custody of the carpet (11 days) versus the amount of 
time that NTS contractor had custody of it (more than 3 years); and 
water damage to another box in the shipment as noted on the rider.

DECISION

Towne International Forwarding, Inc. requests our review of this 
Office's settlement in which we affirmed the Army's offset of amounts 
it owed to Towne to recover for transit damages to a service member's 
household goods.[1]  Towne claims that the Army owes it $1,500 because 
it was not liable for damage to item 120, an oriental carpet, and it 
seeks an additional $27 because of an error in the calculation of a 
refund on an eight-piece sectional.  We affirm our prior settlement 
with respect to item 120, but remand this matter to the United States 
Army Claims Service to resolve an ambiguity concerning the amount of 
the refund on the sectional.

In April 1987, a nontemporary storage (NTS) contractor packed and 
stored the service member's household goods.  On August 10, 1990, 
Towne obtained the household goods from the NTS contractor in Indiana, 
and on August 21, 1990, it delivered them to the service member in 
Ohio.  Towne's rider to the NTS contractor's inventory did not note 
any damage with respect to the carpet, but, following delivery, the 
service member reported dry rot damage.  Several months after 
delivery, an appraiser found that the carpet was infested with live 
moths and active moth larva, and moth damage pervaded the entire 
carpet.  The carpet also had extensive areas of mildew and dry rot, 
and in some areas the carpet had disintegrated from dry rot damage.  
It is undisputed that an undamaged carpet of this type was worth about 
$1,500.

Towne argues that there is no prima facie liability against it for any 
of this damage because the damage was an inherent vice.  The company 
directs us to the Department of Defense (DOD) Personal Property 
Traffic Management Regulation, DOD Reg. 4500.34-R and cites 
specifically item 5 of the Domestic Personal Property Rate 
Solicitation D-1.  Item 5,2,d(6) of the Domestic Personal Property 
Rate Solicitation D-1 stated that a carrier is not responsible for 
loss or damage caused by the "inherent vice of the article or 
infestations by mollusks, arachnids, crustaceans, parasites, or other 
types of pests; fumigations or decontamination when not the fault of 
the carrier."  Finally, Towne directs our attention to the finding of 
the appraiser that the carpet became wet during storage and that it 
had noted on its rider that some boxes in the shipment had exhibited 
indications of having been wet.

The preliminary issue is whether the shipper established a prima facie 
case of carrier liability.  To do so, the shipper must show tender of 
the goods to the carrier, delivery in a more damaged condition, and 
the amount of damages.  See Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & 
Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138 (1964).  Moreover, when goods pass through 
the custody of more than one bailee, it is a presumption of the common 
law that the damage occurred in the hands of the last one.  See 
Stevens Transportation Co., Inc., B-243750, Aug. 28, 1991.  The 
carrier then bears the burden of proving either that the damage did 
not occur while in its custody or that the damage can be attributed to 
one of five exceptions.  See McNamara-Lunz Vans and Warehouses, Inc., 
57 Comp. Gen. 415, 418 (1978).  See also Item 5,2,d(7) of Domestic 
Personal Property Rate Solicitation D-1 which provided that the 
carrier has the burden of showing that the loss or damage was caused 
by the excepted conditions which relieve it of liability.

In our view, Towne did not meet this burden of proof.  Towne did not 
unroll the carpet to examine it before assuming custody.  Nothing 
prevented Towne from doing so.  See Eastern Forwarding Co., B-248185, 
Sept. 2, 1992; Air Land Forwarders, B-247425, June 26, 1992.  If it 
had unrolled the carpet, it is undisputed that it should have found 
the type of damage involved here.  Having failed to inspect it, Towne 
asks us to find that the record contained clear evidence that the 
damage to the carpet occurred during storage, or was due to an 
inherent vice, and that nothing it did during the 11 days it had 
custody could have caused the damages involved.

Towne's factual evidence is the appraiser's belief that the carpet 
became wet during storage; the comparative amount of time that Towne 
had custody of the carpet (11 days) versus the amount of time that NTS 
contractor had custody of it (more than 3 years); and water damage to 
"some" other boxes in the shipment as noted on the rider.  But a close 
look at the rider indicates that Towne expressly noted water marks on 
only one other item (item 125), even though the inventory indicates 
that the shipment consisted of approximately 125 items.  Mildew, dry 
rot, and insect damage were not noted in other cloth-type articles 
(e.g., the eight-piece sectional).  Also, there is no evidence, for 
example, on how the NTS contractor protected the carpet during storage 
compared with Towne's protection during transport.  Towne did not 
present any expert evidence with regard to mildew, dry rot, or insect 
infestation which would have precluded the probability that these 
damages had occurred in transit in view of the amount of time in 
Towne's custody and the condition in which it was shipped.  We have no 
factual basis to conclude that the damage involved here could not have 
occurred during the 11 days that Towne had custody over it.  The 
appraiser stated that the carpet became wet during storage, and not 
otherwise, but the basis for this belief is not stated even though he 
made his appraisal several months after delivery.  Finally, an 
inherent vice is something inherent in an item that leads to damage 
without any outside influence other than the laws of nature.  See 
Aalmode Transportation Corp., B-237658, Feb. 12, 1990.  There is no 
factual basis to conclude that the damages described above would have 
taken place in the absence of a breach of duty of care by someone.

It appears that the Army may have made a clerical mistake in the 
refund.  The administrative report states that the carrier is due a 
refund of $1,374 with respect to the eight-piece sectional (items 2 
through 7), but other documentation indicates that the amount actually 
refunded was only $1,347.  This matter is remanded to the United 
States Army Claims Service to resolve this discrepancy.  Otherwise, we 
affirm our prior settlement.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. This personal property shipment of Bruce A. Simpson was under 
government bill of lading GP-308,399.