Regrettably, courts often fail to recognize this important purpose of monetary limits. See the justified criticism of the decision by BGH (VersR 1985 p. 1060) by H. Glöckner op.cit. note 5.61 p. 108 but apparently to no avail. The risk of losing the benefit of monetary limitation is rather aggravated by placing the burden on the carrier to clarify the circumstances giving rise to the loss or damage (Germ. »Figur der sekundären Darlegungslast»), which, in practice, fre quently results in the loss of the right to limit liability. See the decision of BGH TranspR 2003 p. 467 and cf. the decision of the Supreme Court of Sweden NJA 1998 s. 390. A more practical view is upheld in English case law. See R. Asariotis, Haftungsbegrenzungen und deren Durch brechung im Seehandelsrecht: die englische Auffassung, TranspR 4-2004 p. 147. R. Herber, Haftungsbegrenzungen und deren Durchbrechung in deutschen und internationalen Trans portrecht, TranspR 3-2004 p. 93 et seq. supports the cases by BGH, stressing that the »Beweis last» is a procedural matter where regard must be had to the claimant’s »Informationsdefizit ». F. Fremuth, TranspR 3-2004 p. 99 et seq. at p. 103 criticizes the »Beweislastumkehr» by BGH in BGHZ 145 p. 170, TranspR 2001,29 at p. 33. Similarly, K-H Thume, TranspR 2002-1 p.
Regrettably, courts often fail to recognize this important purpose of monetary limits. See the justified criticism of the decision by BGH (VersR 1985 p. 1060) by H. Glöckner op.cit. note 5.61 p. 108 but apparently to no avail. The risk of losing the benefit of monetary limitation is rather aggravated by placing the burden on the carrier to clarify the circumstances giving rise to the loss or damage (Germ. »Figur der sekundären Darlegungslast»), which, in practice, fre quently results in the loss of the right to limit liability. See the decision of BGH TranspR 2003 p. 467 and cf. the decision of the Supreme Court of Sweden NJA 1998 s. 390. A more practical view is upheld in English case law. See R. Asariotis, Haftungsbegrenzungen und deren Durch brechung im Seehandelsrecht: die englische Auffassung, TranspR 4-2004 p. 147. R. Herber, Haftungsbegrenzungen und deren Durchbrechung in deutschen und internationalen Trans portrecht, TranspR 3-2004 p. 93 et seq. supports the cases by BGH, stressing that the »Beweis last» is a procedural matter where regard must be had to the claimant’s »Informationsdefizit ». F. Fremuth, TranspR 3-2004 p. 99 et seq. at p. 103 criticizes the »Beweislastumkehr» by BGH in BGHZ 145 p. 170, TranspR 2001,29 at p. 33. Similarly, K-H Thume, TranspR 2002-1 p.s. 57