This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a maritime action brought to recover compensation for damagеs to Volkswagen automobiles that were carried aboard the MS JAROSA from. Emden, Germany, to New Orleans, Louisiana, in December, 1967. Plaintiffs-appellants, Volkswagen of America, Inc., the purchaser of the automobiles, and Frankfurter Versicherungs A. G., the сargo underwriter, filed suit against defendants-appellees, the MS JAROSA and her owner and operator, Anders Jahre. Anders Jahre brought a third-party action against Volkswagenwerk A. G., the manufacturer of the automobiles, and Wolfsburger Transport Gesellsсhaft m.b.h., the time-charterer of the MS JAROSA, both of which are also appellants.
The ease was submitted for decision below on the pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence, and briefs of counsel — no oral testimony was receivеd. The ultimate question is who was responsible for various defects, principally water damage, rust, and corrosion, discovered on the automobiles when they reached New Orleans. Appellants contend that the cars were deliverеd to the shipper in undamaged condition and that all damages were sustained during the crossing of the Atlantic. Appelleеs insist that they were in no way responsible for the damage sustained, and that, in fact, the automobiles were exposed tо water immediately prior to and during their loading, which occurred during a snowstorm and while much sea spray was in the air. The cоurt below studied the evidence and entered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which reproduced verbatim proposed findings and conclusions submitted to the court by Anders Jahre. The trial judge found that appellees’ version of the facts was correct — that the damage was caused by pre-shipping exposure — and entered judgment in favor of аppellees, dismissing the principal suit and the third-party action.
Appellants raise four issues on appeal. Although we find that each is without legal merit, we feel that because of the frequency with which these and similar arguments are presеnted to this Court, a brief discussion of each argument may serve some purpose.
I.
Appellants first urge that this Court “is not limited by the findings bеlow because all of the evidence was either documentary or in transcript form. The district court had no better оpportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rule 52 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] does not ap
*559
ply.” This broad statement indeed appears in and was applied to the facts of the case in Frazier v. Alabama Motor Club, Inc., 5 Cir. 1965,
“The appellant’s burden, under Fed.R. Civ.P. 52(a), of showing that the trial judge’s findings of fact are ‘clearly erroneous’ is not as heavy . as it would be if the case had turned on the credibility of witnesses appearing before the trial judgе. However, regardless of the documentary nature of the .evidence and the process of drawing inferences frоm undisputed facts, the reviewing court must apply the ‘clearly erroneous’ test.”
Sicula Oceanica, S.A. v. Wilmar Marine Eng. & Sales Corp., 5 Cir. 1969,
The Sicula Oceánica case teaches that it is our duty, when these cases are presented for review, to study the entire record thoroughly and to determine whether we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
See
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 1948,
II.
Appellants next argue that we should treat the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered below as being “clearly suspect” because they were adopted verbatim from proposed findings аnd conclusions submitted by ap-pellees. Although some courts have reached that position,
e. g.,
In re Las Colinas, Inc., 1 Cir. 1970,
“We disaрprove of the practice of a trial judge’s uncritically accepting proposed findings, but this unfortunate practice does not erase the ‘clearly erroneous’ rule. . . . When substantial evidence supports a finding it will not be found clearly erroneous merely because the expression of the finding was adopted from a proposal by counsel.”
III. & IV.
Appellants’ third argument is that the trial court misconstrued the burdens of proof applicable to an action such as this one. With this argument appellants intertwine their final point, that the findings entered were based on rank speculation. The рoints are closely related, and having considered them together, we find that neither is meritorious. Both turn upon the particular findings entered below and, having refused to apply an extraordinary standard of appellate review, we hold thаt those findings are not clearly erroneous. Keeping appellants’ vigorous criticisms in mind, we have parsed and thoroughly scrutinized the entire record. We find ample support in the evidence from which the learned judge below could properly infer that the damage to the automobiles was not sustained in shipment due to any fault of appellees. An exhаustive review in this opinion of all the evidence contained in the record is neither necessary nor appropriate. Suf *560 fice it to say that there was plenteous evidence before the trial court that the automobiles werе exposed to the elements before shipping and that they were not further exposed to water after they were placed aboard the MS JAROSA.
Affirmed.