MATTER OF: SENTRY HOUSEHOLD SHIPPING, INC. FILE: B-243922 DATE: JULY 22, 1991

MATTER OF: SENTRY HOUSEHOLD SHIPPING, INC. FILE: B-243922 DATE: JULY 22, 1991

Decision

The Air Force appeals a February 8, 1991, settlement by our Claims Group denying set-off of $200 against Sentry Household Shipping, Inc. The Air Force objects to the Claims Group's conclusion that the carrier was not liable for damage to a violin, which the shipper reported upon delivery of his household goods. We deny the appeal.

Sentry did not list the violin on the inventory of items it prepared when picking up the goods from the shipper. The Claims Group found that no evidence had been produced to show that the violin was tendered to the carrier in better condition than when it was delivered. The Claims Group concluded that the record thus failed to establish a prima facie case of carrier liability.

In its appeal, the Air Force points out that Sentry was responsible for preparing the inventory list, so tht the failure to list the violin was the carrier's own error. The agency maintains that if Sentry had listed the item, without exception as to condition, the carrier's liability for the damage would be clear. The Air Force argues that it is unfair to permit a carrier to avoid liability for damage by simply not listing an item on the inventory.

We agree with the Claims Group. A carrier ts presumed liable for loss or damage to goods where tbe shipper shows: 1) that the goods were delivered to the carrier in a certain condition; 2) that the property ws delivered by the carrier in a more damaged condition; and 3) the amount of lost or damage. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., B-205084, June 2, 1982.

There is no evidence in the record to establish that the violin vas tendered to or delivered by Sentry. We have help that every household good need not be listed on an inventory in order for a carrier to be held liable for loss so long as there is some substantive evidence of tender. Aalmode Transporation Corp., B-240350, Dec. 18, 1990. The evidence, however, must be more than an unsupported, self-serving acknowledgement by the shipper on a standard claim form of the criminal penalties for filing a false claim, since that would place an unreasonable burden on the carrier with regard to loss evidence instead ought to be on the order of a statement by circumstances of tender. Id.

Although Sentry's situation concerns damage, not loss, the principle is the same sincec the same issue -- tender -- is involved. The only evidence that Sentry had the violin is the member's listing of it on a standard-form statement of loss/damage as having a "cracked front"; indeed, the Air Force seems to have used that listing as evidence of delivery which, in turn, necessarily would prove tender. That statement, however, was prepared by the member, and was not signed by the carrier. The record does not include any other statement by the member to describe the circumstances of tender (or delivery), even though the thrust of the claim is that the member allowed an antique violin to be shipped without being identified as part of the shipment. In this respect, we have stated that although the carrier prepares the inventory, it is advisable for the shipper to ensure that the inventory is as detailed s is practicable since the shipper has the burden of establishing a prima facie case against the carrier. Paul Arpin Van Lines, supra.

There similarly is no evidence in the record to establish the condition of the violin before it allegedly was shipped, or that the damage likely occurred during transit. We therefore have no basis to know whether any or all of the damage might have been pre-existing.

In sum, the record is devoid of any evidence, like a statement by the shipper or an analysis of the damage, to establish either tender to the carrier or the condition of the item before shipment. We consequently agree with the Claims Group that the record does not support a prima facie case of carrier liability. The Air Force's appeal is denied.

James F. Hinchman General Counsel