*570 OPINION
By the Court,
This аppeal challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to show that a piece of equipment was delivered to the carrier in good condition for shipment.
Leonard E. Conrad, Inс., a plumbing and heating contractor, commenced this action against Pacific Intermountain Express Company to recover $6,536.72 for damage to a demineralizer which is used to make high purity water. Comad alleged that the damage occurred while the unit was transported in interstate commеrce by P.I.E. The district court awarded Conrad, Inc., the full amount of its claim plus interest and costs. Attorney’s fеes were denied.
The demineralizer was manufactured by Hytek International Corporation of Clеveland, Ohio, and was delivered by that *571 company to P.I.E. for shipment to Conrad at Sparks, Nevada. The unit was in a damaged condition upon arrival at Sparks. No witness was able to testify how or when the damage occurred. Circumstantial evidence was presented. When the unit was delivered to the jоbsite there was an “L” shape cut along one side of the cardboard exterior which one witness sur-' mised had been intentionally made to allow for an inspection. By lifting the flap created by the сut one could see damage to the unit inside the crate. The supervisor in charge of produсtion for Hytek described the manner in which demineralizers were crated for shipment 1 and stated that if the particular unit had been dropped in the plant after crating it would have been openеd and inspected thoroughly. The bill of lading for the unit did not have a notation of damage.
1. Federal law controls liability for interstate shipments. The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), mаkes the carrier liable for the full actual loss, damage, or injury it causes to the property. A рrima facie case is established by showing delivery of the shipment to the carrier in good condition, its arrival in a damaged condition, and the amount of damages. The Missouri P. R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl,
It was permissible for the trial court to find that the consignee-plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The
*572
supervisor’s testimony about the normal crating process together with the “clean” bill of lading would allow the reasonable inference that the unit was delivered to the carrier in good condition. A “clean” bill of lading, of course, does not prove the good condition of the contents of a sealеd carton. Hoover Motor Express Company v. United States,
The appellant relies heavily upon Hoover, supra. Although it is truе that the evidence offered by the plaintiff in Hoover is similar in character to that offered by the consignеe in this case, there is one major difference to set the two cases apart. In Hoover, there was strong evidence offered by the defendant to show that the goods were not properly packaged for shipment. Such rebuttal evidence is entirely absent in the case at hand. Because of this distinction, we do not find Hoover persuasive authority for reversal.
2. Although the Carmaсk Amendment controls the carrier’s liability, state law remains operative with respect to an аward of attorney’s fees. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harris,
The appeal is affirmed. The cross-appeal is reversed and the case is remanded to allow the district court to exercise its discretion оn plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees.
Notes
‘This unit stands on a metal skid, and a wooden framework is built to fit to the metal skid and to the back of the plаstic column. This framework is attached to the columns by way of metal banding, and bolts through the metal skid. After the skid is affixed, after the framework is affixed to the unit, the unit is then laid back onto this framework. This framework is madе, by the way, out of two by fours. Then an additional slat-type crate frame is made around the unit, out of two by fours, and one by sixes. Then affixed to this framework is heavy corrugated cardboard, and we attach this cardboard with small nails into the wooden framework.”