Lee-Anne Pace has won 8 times on the LET and she looked comfortable playing in the group ahead of 1st- and 2nd-round leader Laura Diaz today at the Marathon Classic. She went out bogey-free in 32 and bounced back from a pair of early bogeys on the back with 3 birdies in her last 6 holes to post a 68 and catch Diaz at -11. The 39-year-old mother of 2 followed up a birdie on the par-4 3rd with a double on the par-4 4th, but hit the short 9th with her drive and sank the 12-foot eagle putt to return to -12. However, she bogeyed the par-4 12th and couldn't find the hole coming in, ultimately failing to take advantage of moving day.
Plenty of other golfers did, though, and the co-leaders have plenty of company. Jaye Marie Green found the form that had her setting records at least year's Q-School as she fired a 9-birdie 63 to move to -10. So Yeon Ryu had nothing going until the end of the day, when she just missed making her 4th birdie in a row on the final hole for a 68 to join Green 1 shot off the lead. Lydia Ko made 3 birdies in her last 6 holes to salvage a 70 and move 2 behind Diaz and Pace. Women's British Open champion Mo Martin shot her 2nd 67 of the week to move to -8. She's joined by Cristie Kerr, who birdied 5 holes between 9 and 16 but failed to birdie the par-5 17th and bogeyed the par-5 18th; Brittany Lang, who hung in there for a 69; Katherine Kirk, who rode the roller-coaster for a 7-birdie 68; and college rivals Austin Ernst (66) and Brooke Pancake (67), who each hit 16 greens and made only 1 bogey each all day. The 2nd-best round of the day belonged to Kris Tamulis, whose bogey-free 64 lifted her into a tie at -7 with rookies Mirim Lee and Kelly Tan (who both shot 68s), youngsters Caroline Hedwall and Kayla Mortellaro (69s), and veterans Candie Kung and Lindsey Wright (also 69s).
And that's not all! Ai Miyazato shot a bogey-free 67 sparked by 4 birdies on the back 9 for the lowest score she's shot since the final round of the ShopRite Classic on September 1st last year. After a 2014 that has gone from mediocre to bad to worse, this is now the 2nd week in a row that she finds herself within sight of the leaders through 54 holes. Tomorrow is going to be very important for her. But it's going to be just as important for everyone else at -6. Brittany Lincicome (69) also needs to jump-start her year, while Marina Alex (69) and Rebecca Lee-Bentham (72) need to move up the money-list.
You don't start to see names as big as Ryu, Ko, and Kerr until you get to -5, with world #1 Stacy Lewis and 7-time LPGA winner Na Yeon Choi shooting 68s and not even having the most impressive rounds of the bunch, as Meena Lee fired a 66 and Pat Hurst and Kim Kaufman 67s. Lexi Thompson also shot a 66 to get to -4, where she is joined by Moira Dunn, Christina Kim, Kristy McPherson, Jenny Shin, Pernilla Lindberg, and Marissa Steen. Shin's 67 was matched by Chella Choi, Tiffany Joh, and Amelia Lewis, who at -3 will need to go off tomorrow to have a chance.
Bottom line: given the super-low rounds we've already seen this week and even lower ones that we know are out there from previous years at Highland Meadows, this is really anyone's tournament. I'm looking forward to watching the action after I try to find my touch in the 2nd round of the Utica City Amateur. Diaz still has a chance to go wire-to-wire this week, but probably 40+ other players will be going to bed tonight with dreams of taking the title away from her.


150 What is best practice for designing form error messages?
142 What are the best ways to increase a site's position in Google?
68 What are best practices for choosing and pairing fonts?
45 Can we do better than CAPTCHA?
44 How to perform a security audit for a PHP application?
41 How to disclose a security vulnerability in an ethical fashion?


text:
Асошники — деревня в Астаповском сельском поселении Луховицкого муниципального района Московской области. До 2004 года деревня относилась к Матырскому сельскому округу. По данным 2006 года в Асошниках проживает 93 человека.

Асошники находятся в 4 км по прямой от Новорязанского шоссе. Ближайшие населённые пункты к Асошникам: Новокунаково — 1,5 км, Игнатьево — 2,5 км и Матыра — 2,5 км. Рядом с деревней имеется небольшой пруд.

Расположение
 Расстояние от административного центра поселения — посёлка совхоза «Астапово»
 9 км на юго-восток от центра посёлка
 12,5 км по дороге от границы посёлка (через Луховицы)
 Расстояние от административного центра района — города Луховицы
 5,5 км на запад от центра города
 4,5 км по дороге от границы города

Улицы
В деревне имеются (или в своё время имелись) следующие улицы:
 Центральная улица
 Лесная улица
 Полевая улица
 Улица Самара

Транспорт
Имеется регулярное пассажирское автотранспортное сообщение с административным центром муниципального района — городом Луховицы:
 Маршрут № 28 Луховицкого АТП: Луховицы — Асошники — Берхино.

Сельское хозяйство
Фермеры.

Происшествия
Убийство двух человек в Асошниках сбежавшим дезертиром.

Источники

Населённые пункты Луховицкого района

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Home Admissions Buses
Brummana High School's bus transportation objective is to provide safe travel for students from homes to school and the return journey. We contract a private school bus company to provide safe and efficient transportation for students under the provisions of the Lebanese law and regulations.
Currently there are 10 different routes covering over 60 destinations. Factors such as cost, time, distance and demand are taken into consideration when determining annual bus routes. As a result, bus routes can vary from year to year, and new routes are considered when there is a demand. Please click here for this academic year's bus routes.
There are currently 22 vans and 6 buses (2015-2020 models), and our policy is to have no vehicle older than 5 years. Each has an on-going maintenance programme and undergoes an annual mechanical inspection check of roadworthiness for conformity to technical standards and norms as set by the Ministry of Interior.
Drivers are holders of a valid driver's licence and undergo an annual medical check-up and sight test. They are experienced and appropriately trained when recruited and periodically thereafter. The training includes defensive driving, first aid, advanced driver training and hazard identification. Bus drivers have instructions not to leave the campus until all students have been accounted for. All drivers carry cellular telephones.
Both drivers and monitors may not smoke whilst there are passengers on the bus.
Students on the bus must abide by the school rules, respect the designated monitor and follow these BHS bus rules:
Get on and off the bus in an orderly manner in single file
No physical play or rough conduct is allowed at any time
Remain properly seated at all times and keep head and other parts of the body inside the bus and out of the aisle
Avoid loud conversation and singing
Musical instruments may not be played inside the bus
Ask the bus monitor's permission before opening a window
Eating, drinking, chewing gum and smoking are not allowed on the bus
Respect the rights of others inside and outside the bus
Written parental permission is required if a bus registered student who comes to school in the morning is not using the usual bus on the homeward journey (because he/she is not returning by bus or is going on a different bus)
A student who is not registered to use the bus service may not use a BHS bus, unless it is a BHS sanctioned activity
A student who misbehaves on the bus will be reported to the Head of Section. A student who repeatedly misbehaves on the bus will be banned from using it
All students travelling by bus must wear the seat belts provided, for their safety and security
One monitor is provided on each bus. Their duty is to supervise the students on the bus and as they get on and off the bus. Their job description is based on the job description for school bus monitors published under the Lebanese Law. They are trained to deal with children and youth aged from 3-18 years old.
For those students who used the bus the previous academic year, and there is no change in address or telephone number, please send written confirmation that the student/s will be using the bus before 31 July (by Fax 04-961225 or email rabih.chababi@bhs.edu.lb). If the address or telephone number has changed from last year, completion of the Bus Registration Form is required. The bus registration fee of LL 300,000 (non-refundable) should be paid by 1 September, together with the first payment of tuition fees.
If your child did not use the bus service the previous year, but will be using it in the coming academic year, please reserve as soon as possible by completing a Bus Registration Form (in English or Arabic) and paying the bus registration fee. A schedule of bus destinations and the annual charge for each destination is available from the Accounts Office. The Bus Registration Form is also available from the Bus Coordinator in the Upper School and you can discuss your requirements with him before completing and returning the form to him. The bus registration fee of LL 300,000 (non-refundable) should be paid at the Accounts Office.
New routes are being considered, so please advise the Bus Coordinator by 31 July if you would like to use the bus service for a route that was previously not available.
The remaining balance of bus fees should be paid according to the following schedule:
Grades Deadlines
Bus 1st Payment Bus & Tuition
2nd Payment Bus & Tuition
3rd Payment
All grades to Secondary 1 LP
Grade 10 IP 31 October (40%) 5 January (40%) 31 March (20%)
Secondary 2-3 LP
Grades 11-12 IP
IB 1-2 31 October (50%) 5 January (50%)
If your fees invoice already includes the bus registration fee, and you do not wish to use the bus service, please pass by the Accounts Office before the end of July to have the invoice amended (the banks do not accept partial payment). If you do not arrange to have the invoice amended by the end of July, you will forfeit the bus registration fee.
There is third party liability accident insurance as required by law. This covers damage to other vehicles, property, and injuries to passengers and any other persons.
Emergency School Closure
Please check the Emergency School Closure page for information on when the school may close due to an emergency and the procedures that are followed.
Further information is available from the Bus Coordinator.
Tel: 04-960430/1/2 ext. 218
Fax: 04-961225
Email: rabih.chababi@bhs.edu.lb
10 bus routes covering over 60 destinations

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Shipmanagers' Letter of Undertaking (LoU) is a model letter for use in third party arrangements where shipmanagers maintain and operate the vessel but have no financial involvement or interest in its ownership. The content of the LoU is based on provisions commonly found in market documentation but creates a more equitable starting point for discussions. The BIMCO LoU aims to eliminate the need for often protracted party negotiations where points argued in previous cases are frequently repeated, which can be time-consuming and adds to costs. Copyright in Shipmanagers' Letter of Undertaking is held by BIMCO.
Capesize: The week ended with a flourish with a lot of talk about possible Brazil fixtures at much improved levels. The Baltic Exchange daily fixture report features daily updates on the Baltic exchange indexes, timecharters, periods, voyage fixtures and is listed by ship name, size, delivery place and freight rate. The daily dry bulk market report by the Baltic Exchange contains news impacting the following segments; capesize, panamax, supramax and handysize.
BIMCO President and Chairman of Louis Dreyfus Armateurs, Philippe Louis-Dreyfus opened the Armateurs de France and BIMCO event in Paris on 14 June 2016.


text:
Image teardrop tattoo,cool name designs for tattoos,custom temporary tattoo design,free picture editor online collage creator - Reviews
adminCategory: Kanji Tattoo
Teardrop tattoos are small tear shaped tattoo design placed under the eyes or anywhere on body, and it creates an impression that the tattoo bearer is crying.
Who says, guys are bad at showing out their emotions, they too can cry and express the hurt inside. Black tear drop flowing down his eye, and that stoned expression on his face is saying it all.
Heart shape teardrop on her glowing smiling face, showing an unusual contrast in her personality.
AboutA popular Graphic and Web Design site where you can expect to see a unique take on topics, we try not to tread on familiar topics seen on other design sites.
This is the "TEAR DROP" made and installed by the Russians to honor those who died in 9 11 and a statement against terrorism. According to this message, attached photographs show a spectacular monument that was a gift to the United States from Russia. On September 11, 2006, the 100-foot monument, "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism," is unveiled at a dedication ceremony featuring former President Clinton, Governor Corzine, Senators Menendez and Lautenberg and other dignitaries. Zurab Tsereteli is a well respected, multi-talented artist whose works appear in many cities around the world.
Hoax-Slayer debunks email and social media hoaxes, thwarts Internet scammers, combats spam, and educates web users about email, social media, and Internet security issues. Contact us with a description of the clipart you are searching for and we'll help you find it. If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.
We reserve the right to delete any comments and block any commenters.LegalThe contents of this website are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as advice. We professionally supply name brand bikini, Beachwear, and swimming wear, which are, available in the stock now, ready to ship. We are aythentic supplier of garments, jeans, T-shirts.We professionally managed bikini and swimming dress for many years, our products are of high quality and fashionable design.
Do not post business enquiry here, click Get a quote to contact the supplier if you want to buy it. According to some beliefs, a teardrop tattoo was inked on the individual when he had killed a person, particularly while in prison. Along with tutorials and articles, we also do round ups, how-to guides, tips, tricks and cheats on all of the hot topics in the design world. The monument was created and donated by artist Zurab Tsereteli and the people of Russia to memorialize the victims of the Sept. Now Russia has given us "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism," another XXL, in-a-class-of-its-own monument.
What is the meaning of a teardrop tattoo is still a debatable topic, but according to some of the stories it means that someone from family, a close friend or member of the gang has passed away.
A solid teardrop tattoo means that there was a murder committed, and if the tattoo has a clear middle, it was trying to murder and an empty teardrop symbolizes that a loved one has been murdered. If you have not seen it, that may be because you havena€™t recently approached New York City by ship.
I've been wanting to do another version of the conceptual Ultralight Teardrop Trailer for a Bicycle and the link Roy sent has me got me firing my imagination and Google SketchUp again.
The memorial is the centerpiece of Harbor View Park located on the northeast corner of The Peninsula.
For those coming in from the Atlantic, through the Narrows, the Russian gift now heaves into view well before Lady Liberty.
Most of the trailers on the site are for towing behind a car or truck but there was at least one bike teardrop trailer. If you too are planning to get one, check out the amazing picture gallery of 25 teardrop tattoos below. Two weeks after the dedication ceremony, the first mile of greenway on The Peninsula is open to the public for the first time in a generation. That is intentional, according to Zurab Tsereteli, the Moscow-based sculptor who created the monument. As you get closer, however, you will begin to make out an immense, stainless-steel teardropa€"the Tear of Griefa€"hanging in a jagged crack that runs down the middle of the main slab.
Required fields are marked *CommentName * Email * Website Get your copy of Tiny House Floor Plans in print at Amazon. In other words constructive critique is welcome, destructive mean-spirited judgements are not permitted.
Free stock images writing
Flower on vine tattoos
ILDIRIM writes...
Questioning which model of the Joker will make it into tattoo.
apocalypse writes...
The Lincoln bike for their web the leaves continues i'd never performed.
DeaD_GirL writes...
Anyone that figures it out,??says Gero, adding.
KAROL88 writes...
Seems to so many people who got down years, in line with the American Society for Aesthetic.
Common tattoo backgrounds Octopus tattoo arm vol Tattoos ideas religious 2014 Awesome flower foot tattoos 9gag Hip tattoo cover ups Tribal full back piece tattoos 2014 Gay arm tattoos Tribal wolf shoulder tattoo Pictures of girly tattoos uk Angry pitbull tattoos Photo editing downloads free Quotev yandere x reader Medusa tattoo jay 25 sugar skull tattoos Quotes on death of your mom Forearm tattoo sleeve price Happy love quotes that make you cry videos Feminine mermaid tattoos


text:
"The [Export-Import] Bank loses almost $200 million a year." Really?
Let me start with full disclosure: I am on the Export-Import Bank's Advisory Board, and during my career in the US Treasury and the think-tank world I have advocated Ex-Im Bank's vital role in promoting US exports.
Naturally the Ex-Im Bank has its critics (myself included), and some of the criticisms are justified. But in the current debate over reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) has struck a truly low blow—not only low but without foundation. In its "Need to Know" brief, AFP highlighted the headline above, a claim subsequently trumpeted by other conservative groups.1
As disclosed in its 2013 annual report, the Ex-Im Bank returned $1,057 million to the US Treasury, representing profits from outstanding loans and guarantees of $114 billion. How can AFP assert a loss of $200 million when the Ex-Im Bank returned over $1 billion to its sole shareholder and paid claims of just $49 million, a default rate less than one-quarter of one percent? Before delving into the details, it's worth exploring the broader context of this year's anti–Ex-Im Bank campaign.
On its website, AFP declares its mission: "AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels." The foremost "grassroots leader" behind AFP is the billionaire David Koch. AFP opposes nearly all federal credit and loan guarantee programs. While the biggest targets are student loan and federal housing programs, AFP, Heritage, Cato, and other conservative organizations believe that the opportune place to attack is against "corporate welfare"—exemplified by the Export-Import Bank. So, in 2014, as the Ex-Im Bank seeks a 5-year reauthorization, the bank has become the political poster for a far larger agenda. The goal is to close down the Ex-Im Bank and then move on to other targets.
Now the details. The $200 million loss claim is rooted in "Fair Value Accounting," a concept promoted by Deborah Lucas when she served in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).2 The concept was subsequently embraced in a CBO publication that draws heavily from the original Lucas paper.3
The core idea of Fair Value Accounting (FVA) is that federal credit and loan guarantee programs shouldnot be scored, for budget purposes, by their annual profits and losses as normally recorded. Instead the question should be asked: "What would the loans or guarantees cost, over their lifetimes, if provided by the private market?" According to FVA, the difference between the assumed private market interest rate and the cost of Treasury funds over the same period represents this year's "loss" resulting from a federal loan that extends over several years. The "loss" from a federal guarantee is calculated in a similar fashion: The difference between the assumed private market guarantee rate and the guarantee fee collected by the federal agency, again cumulated over the life of the guarantee, represents the FVA "loss."
Whatever its merits as a general tool for federal budgeting, the FVA concept has severe weaknesses when applied to the Export-Import Bank. Off the bat is the startling fact that AFP's $200 million "loss" figure cannot be found either in the cited Lucas paper or the CBO report.4 Perhaps AFP did its own calculations, but if so the assumptions as to alternative private market loan rates and guarantee fees are nowhere explained.
More fundamentally, an FVA calculation requires both faith in the accuracy of the risk assessments embedded in private market interest rates and guarantee fees and, in many cases, assumptions about the comparable rates and fees. Private market interest rates and guarantee fees reflect guesses about future financial risks. We know from recent US and EU financial crises that private investors often guess wrong, both underestimating and overestimating future risks.
Moreover, comparable private market interest rates and guarantee fees seldom exist as benchmarks for Ex-Im Bank financing. Default rates on Ex-Im Bank loans and guarantees have been extremely low, even during the Great Recession, much lower than Small Business Administration loans and far lower than student loans. While actual Ex-Im default rates are very low, the essential rationale for the Ex-Im Bank is that private loan and guarantee markets are highly imperfect, both for the long-lived capital assets financed by the Ex-Im Bank (aircraft, locomotives, and power plants) and for many small business firms. Consequently reliable private market benchmarks are not to be found.
When they can't find remotely comparable private lending and guarantee rates, FVA practitioners invoke convoluted assumptions to carry out their arithmetic.5 The ensuing calculations are at best judgmental and speculative—and they work in the direction of exaggerating risk. To be fair, the cited publications by Lucas and the CBO recognize these limitations. But qualifications are tossed aside by the AFP when it claims losses of $200 million. What should be tossed aside is the AFP claim, not the Export-Import Bank.
1. See Heritage Action, the Cato Institute, and other conservative groups.
2. Deborah Lucas, "Credit Policy as Fiscal Policy" , Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Bureau of Economic Research, November 15, 2011.
3. Congressional Budget Office, "Fair-Value Accounting for Federal Credit Programs" , March 2012.Prosperity Foundation's "Need to Know" informational
4. Nor does the figure appear in another study by Lucas and Phaup, "The Cost of Risk to the Government and Its Implications for Federal Budgeting" , in Lucas, ed., Measuring and Managing Federal Financial Risk (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
5. See the description on p. 15 of Lucas, "Credit Policy as Fiscal Policy" .
Our Global Economic Leadership Is at Stake
Don't Be Fooled by the Name, the US Export-Import Bank Is about Exports and Jobs
The Price of Waiting for an EXIM Board Quorum Is Jobs
Export-Import Bank


text:
Interview: How One Italian Tourism Board Banks on Local Products and Food
Samantha Shankman, Skift
Emilia-Romagna can't be considered a success story yet, but its everyday efforts mirror the work of many lesser known destinations and the opportunities that digital media provides to define their offering and broaden their audience.
— Samantha Shankman
Emanuele Burioni is the CEO of the Emilia-Romagna Region Tourist Board.
Editor's Note: Skift is publishing a series of interviews with CEOs of destination marketing organizations where we discuss the future of their organizations and the evolving strategies for attracting visitors. Read all the interviews as they come out here.
This continues our series of CEO interviews that began with online travel CEOs in Future of Travel Booking (now an e-book), and continued with hotel CEOs in the Future of the Guest Experience series (which is also an e-book).
Emilia-Romagna is a region of northern Italy and home to some of the country's most iconic products including Ferrari cars, Ducati motorcycles, Parmigiano Reggiano cheese, and balsamic vinegar from Modena.
Among tourists, however, the region often takes a back seat to the country's most well-known destinations including Rome, Florence, and the Amalfi Coast. Emilia-Romagna hosted just over 9 million visitors in 2013, of which 28 percent came from abroad, according to the Italian National Statistical Institute. Emilia-Romagna is the sixth most visited region in Italy.
In a country that's not known for its stellar tourism marketing efforts, the Emilia-Romagna Region Tourist Board is working hard to change this by raising awareness of its ancient history, culinary significance and warm culture through digital media. It runs contests, hands its Instagram account over to locals, and hosts as many bloggers and digital journalists as possible.
Still, tying the world-renowned products with the experiences available in the region is a balance that the tourism board works at daily.
Skift recently spoke with the organization's CEO Emanuele Burioni and his team about the region's challenges to raising its profile, its successful formula for working with media, and how it plans to overcome a shrinking budget with partnerships.
Skift: Your destination has many attractions including the world's oldest university, renaissance cities, and beach resorts. However, most travelers thinking about a trip to Italy focus on Naples, Rome, or Tuscany. How do you raise awareness of the region and get people to Emilia-Romagna?
Emanuele Burioni: There are products made in Emilia-Romagna that are better known than the region, which we refer to as "fast cars and slow foods." The main products are Ferrari, Ducati, and Lamborghini. There's also Parmigiano Reggiano and Prosciutto di Parma. Our daily challenge is connecting these great products to the overall image of the region.
Skift: Are you telling tourists to come to this region because of the products?
Burioni: We'd say come to this region because it offers experiences and products that can't be found elsewhere.
This region kind of invented mass tourism in Italy. The middle class didn't traditionally have summer holidays, but after the second world war, the coast started creating rooms for people to come on holiday. We went from a few thousand people in the winter to millions coming from northern Italy and Germany in the summer.
We are now at the point where we are trying to reinvent mass tourism because our previous offering is not that appealing any more. With the same amount of money, travelers can go to Seychelles or the United States.
We recently came out with a brand new strategy based on the Via Emilia, an ancient Roman pathway that led from Rimini to Milan. It is recognized, at least in Europe, as part of our heritage and we're trying to tie our products and marketing campaigns to it. We are trying to convey the idea that tourists aren't buying Emilia-Romagna but are buying the history and experiences of the Via Emilia, which comes with fast cars and slow foods that they can't find anywhere else in the world.
Skift: Emilia-Romagna has really invested in digital media and tested a variety of different campaigns. Can you tell us more about those more marketing strategies and which have been the most successful?
Burioni: We are working hard on the digital side of our marketing presence, especially with social media. We try to connect online digital campaigns with offline campaigns. The key word here is handcrafted hospitality, which ties back to the cultural identity of the region. One of our major successes has been the Blogville project. We tried to open the format of traditional blogger tours towards a more wiki-like format. We don't provide bloggers or journalists with pre-defined programs or places to go. We just provide them with an apartment and allow them to choose what to do. The resulting freedom allows our guests to tell stories that the public, and even ourselves, would not expect.
We have offered the apartment for two years and will run it for a third year with the region of Lombardy. We have so far hosted some 130 bloggers from five continents. It's been a great success in terms of photos and stories as well as the originality of the stories created. Giving people complete freedom has proved very successful for us.
On social media, we are also trying to get people from the region involved by engaging individuals, businesses and institutions. For example, we asked locals to rewrite Wikipedia entries about food and history in our region. They were proud to be a part of it and we got better Wikipedia pages as a result. We also outsource our Instagram account to individual photographers from the community to create a collective take on Emilia-Romagna.
Skift: Are you able to measure what the impact of these blogger trips, whether it's increased awareness, website visits or actual visits?
Burioni: We're at that very point right now. Frankly, we don't have standard measures yet, however, businesses report travelers calling from China or Brazil after someone from their country visited. For example, a center that teaches cooking classes hosted a blogger from Shanghai and then Chinese citizens called asking for the same experience. We are getting to the point where stakeholders themselves want to learn more about this kind of exposure. We have hints that it's working.
Skift: The region is so rich in local, and world-recognized, cuisine. What role does food play in attracting tourists?
Burioni: It is a core part of our branding strategy. There are plenty of certified products and renowned chefs here, but food is more of a way of living for locals. People love to spend time not just preparing and eating food but sitting at the table together.
This idea of relaxed conviviality is part of our identity and that's precisely what we try to convey. That's the more interesting, difficult to explain, part of social media marketing. We are trying to handcraft hospitality the same way that our food is handcrafted, to customize the experience for each guests.
Imagine an old woman in a small kitchen making pasta for her guests: She wants to provide every guest with what he or she wants. We are trying to bring that spirit to digital media. We have much smaller numbers than other organizations on social media but we try to treat every conversation we have on social media as if it's the only conversation we're having with a visitor.
Skift: How do you make sure that people know these great products are tied to the region?
Burioni: We are trying to customize the food tourism experiences more and more with time. For example, we bring Instagrammers and video producers to experience a Sunday lunch with a local family. A local will host them, bring them to shop for food products, cook with them and share Sunday lunch. The whole experience is then broadcast via social media. It's an experience that we provide for normal tourists too. In more and more cities around the region, young cooks are opening the doors to their homes to teach visitors how to cook. The personalization of the food experience is the stronger part of strategy in this respect.
Skift: How has social media become more of a priority in recent years?
Burioni: Social media is becoming more and more relevant to our overall strategy, because it is the platform through which we talk with visitors, reach a broader audience and gain insights on what visitors enjoy most about the region. There are only four out of 50 people in the organization working on social media and we are still in our infancy in terms of measuring outcomes. I ask that we increase overall awareness of the brand and understand that the outcome is more lateral at this point.
What is happening now is that we are becoming a kind of cultural hub when it comes to digital culture. We provide our public, and sometimes our private, stakeholders with insights about digital culture and the relevance of social media. The main goal, in the short term, is not about increasing room occupancy. We can't measure that yet. What I can say for sure is that we are providing a platform for our stakeholders to express themselves.
Skift: All destinations struggle with funding. Do you see this changing in the next 5 to ten years as the economic significance of tourism is better realized?
Burioni: In this country, funding for any single public activity is shrinking and it's likely that public money for tourism in this regional and Italy as a whole is going to shrink more in the next 5 to ten years. For example, we went from a budget of 14 million euros for 2014 to 10 million euros for 2015.
Our effort therefore is to work even more closely with the major companies that are established in our territory to increase awareness of the products and our region worldwide. We are going to more often partner with other destinations in Italy to better promote and sell the country around the globe.
Skift: What about relationships within the travel industry? Will you be working more or less closely with other sectors?
Burioni: I definitely expect more collaboration. I see our own road changing in a major way. Our role is shifting from being a content provider to being an attention provider for people. In the past, travelers would come to us for information and the basics of the destination or experience. What we are doing now is becoming a platform where all stakeholders, locals and visitors can express themselves and share information.
For example, there is a small neighborhood in our region called Brisighella that is in the running to be named the nicest neighborhood in Italy. Through digital media, we are trying to engage the whole local community to vote for this town. It's not about the vote per se. It's about the shifting role of our organization, which is to direct public attention towards the needs of the destination or the needs of our guests.
Whenever someone asks us something about an attraction or site, we outsource the question to our overall community on Facebook and Twitter and ask them to answer the question.
Tags: emilia-romagna, fodm, italy, marketing, tourism
Photo Credit: The tourist board's logo is laid over local produce to promote the region's culinary tourism. Emilia-Romagna Region Tourist Board
Momondo's Viral Video Is a Piece of Kayak's Brand Marketing Strategy
IBM + Skift
Mobile Solutions Evolve as a Key Driver for Personalization In The Airline Industry


ControlAir Inc. announced its new Type 6100 High Flow Capacity Volume Booster, designed to significantly increase the stroking speed in valve actuation system applications that require high-forward flow and exhaust capacities.
ControlAir's Type 6100 High Flow Capacity Volume Booster.
The Type 6100 is a 1:1 signal to output relay that when used with a positioner/actuator is designed to increase the stroking speed of control valves. An integral bypass valve provides system stability while allowing normal positioner airflow and normal valve actuation with small input changes. The soft valve seat design provides tight shutoff and eliminates leakage in steady state operation to reduce costly air consumption.
Type 6100 applications include actuation of control valves used in chemical, petrochemical, oil and gas, pharmaceutical and food processing markets. Other OEM applications include printing presses, textile machinery, tire machinery, air-operated pumps, paper machinery and paint spray systems.
The high flow booster handles up to 250 psig (17.0 bar) supply air pressure and provides output air pressure of up to 150 psig (10.0 bar). Temperature limits are -40 oF to 200 oF (-40 oC to 93 oC). Exhaust capacity is up to 80 scfm (2,264 Nl/min) with downstream 5 psig (0.4 bar) above 20 psig (1.38 bar) setpoint. Supply pressure effect is 0.1 psig (.007 bar) for a 25 psig (1.7 bar) change. The Type 6100 weighs 2.5 pounds (1.13 kg). A choice of three output ports, 1/4 inch, 1/2 inch, or 3/4 inch NPT provides plumbing flexibility for easy hookup.


Hello dear Patrons. My name is Ali Osman Rabi and I was born in Nigeria. Life in my homeland isn't very easy, But it started to be much worse, when my little sister Adaku was born with immune disorder and we had to spend a lot of money for her medicines. It was really hard, but we have always found a way to do it, but then there were huge windstorm and our roof didnt make it. So I dicided to leave Nigeria and earn some money to build new house. I'm in Italy and it's not very friendly here, so I have problems to find work here. I didn't even get azyl yet so I decided to ask you, good people for atleast 1$ or more. Thank you all.


Tubes are a two stage compact filter ideal for smaller systems. They are designed to be as simple to use as possible and they deliver great performance from a great design.
All piping and fittings including flush valves, air lines, unions etc etc.
Total power draw is approximately 150W (56W from the pump, 64W from the airpump and 30W from the U/V).
This is sufficient to filter around 5kl of water to gin clear quality. By way of information this is the similar system that we use exclusively at our own quarantine facility.


Logistec Corporation announced the expansion of its network of terminals through its acquisition of Gulf Stream Marine of Houston, Texas. This transaction will allow Logistec to establish a stronghold in the U.S. Gulf, provide access to an experienced talent pool, facilitate knowledge transfer between the two organizations, and generate immediate positive benefits to shareholders.
This acquisition represents a major expansion of Logistec's network of terminals in the United States. With Gulf Stream Marine's ten terminals in five ports, Logistec's cargo handling activities now cover 58 terminals in 35 ports in North America.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Gulf Stream Marine operates cargo handling, stevedoring and terminal operations in the U.S. Gulf Coast region. For the year ended October 31, 2017, the ultimate parent company of Gulf Stream Marine, GSM Maritime Holdings, LLC ("GSM"), generated revenue of US$68.7 million and an adjusted EBITDA of US$8.2 million. Pursuant to the merger, GSM shareholders received aggregate cash consideration of US$65.7, subject to adjustments.
"Combining Logistec and Gulf Stream Marine will bring together two complementary businesses to deliver greater value, service and innovation to customers, building on Logistec's longstanding track record of successful operations in Canada and in the eastern United States, and from Gulf Stream Marine's strong presence in the U.S. Gulf, as well as its leadership in operational excellence," explained Madeleine Paquin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Logistec.


text:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 350 › Secretary of Agriculture v. United States
Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 350 U.S. 162 (1956)
Audio & Media
Opinions Audio & Media
Secretary of Agriculture v. United States
Argued October 12, 1955
Decided January 9, 1956*
350 U.S. 162
The Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order approving tariff regulations providing that railroads will be responsible for claims for physical damage to shell eggs carried by them only to the extent that such damage is in excess of specified percentages or "tolerances." The validity of the regulations was challenged on the ground that they violated § 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, which provides that any carrier subject to the Act receiving property for interstate transportation "shall be liable . . . for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it" and forbids any limitation of, or exemption from, such liability. The Commission had concluded that, since the tolerances represented pre-shipment and unavoidable damage not "caused by" the railroads, their deduction from damage claims could not limit the railroads' proper liability.
Held: the Commission's findings were insufficient to support this conclusion or to establish that the tolerances permitted by its order will not operate to limit carrier liability in violation of § 20(11), and the Commission's order must be set aside. Pp. 350 U. S. 163-173.
119 F. Supp. 86 reversed.
Page 350 U. S. 163
Decided January 9, 1956350 U.S. 162ast|>*
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, announced by MR. JUSTICE CLARK.
These cases involve the validity of railroad tariff provisions exonerating the appellee railroads from liability for stated percentages of damage to shell eggs shipped over their lines. The cases come to us by direct appeal [Footnote 1] from a judgment of a three-judge district court in Utah [Footnote 2] which dismissed an action brought to set aside and enjoin an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission [Footnote 3] approving such tariff provisions. We noted probable jurisdiction on October 14, 1954. [Footnote 4]
Claims against the railroads for damage to egg shipments steadily and rapidly increased in the years following 1939, particularly on shipments to the eastern seaboard area. [Footnote 5] In 1950, the railroads, believing that, because of the difficulties of proof, they were being exposed to liability for damage for which they were not responsible, filed with the Commission proposed tariff provisions similar in form to those approved by the order under review. After an investigation and hearing, [Footnote 6] the Commission concluded
that egg shipments ordinarily contained substantial amounts of damage for which the railroads were not responsible -- namely, (a) damage existing prior to shipment, and (b) damage unavoidably arising in transit because of the inherently fragile nature of eggs. The average amount of such damage was found to be 3% for eggs packaged at railhead points and 5% for those packaged elsewhere. On the basis of this finding, the Commission, although rejecting the higher percentage provisions proposed by the railroads, [Footnote 7] found reasonable -- and hence authorized the railroads to include in their tariff schedules [Footnote 8] -- the following tolerance provision:
"On eggs placed in packages at rail point of origin of the shipment, no claim shall be allowed where the physical damage to the eggs at destination does not exceed 3% of the contents of the packages containing damaged eggs. Where damage exceeds 3%, claims shall be allowed for all damage in excess of 3% if investigation develops carrier liability."
"Exception. -- Where bona fide certificates of Federal or State egg inspection agencies showing extent of physical damage to eggs determined at rail point of origin of the shipment immediately prior to tender for rail transportation indicate the actual shell damage to be other than 2%, the percentage of actual damage as shown on such certificates, plus 1% shall be used in lieu of 3% specified in this Section."
An otherwise identical provision applicable to "eggs placed in packages at points other than the rail point of
origin" was determined to be reasonable with a tolerance of 5%.
It is claimed that these tariff provisions violate § 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 386, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), which provides that any common carrier subject to the Act receiving property for interstate transportation
"shall be liable . . . for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it . . . , and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever shall exempt such common carrier . . . from the liability hereby imposed. . . ."
The Commission and the court below (one judge dissenting) held that the tolerance provisions did not violate § 20(11) because the pre-shipment and unavoidably-caused damage represented by the tolerances was not damage "caused by" the railroads; hence, the tolerance regulations, in providing a means for determining the extent of such damage, did not limit the railroads' proper liability, but operated simply to eliminate from damage claims the damage for which the railroads were not liable.
The appellants attack the provisions on six principal grounds: (1) the Commission has no jurisdiction over damage claims, and hence no power to prescribe regulations governing their disposition; (2) tolerances based on averages necessarily embrace a forbidden limitation of liability since, by definition, some shipments will contain less than the "average" damage, resulting in those cases in the carrier being relieved of its full liability; (3) the railroads are liable for in-transit damage even though "unavoidable"; [Footnote 9] (4) the averages found by the Commission are not supported by the evidence; (5) the approval of uniform nationwide tolerances was unreasonable in light
of the wide differences in the egg damage experience of consignees located in different areas of the country; [Footnote 10] and (6) the conclusion that the tolerances do not limit liability is not supported by the Commission's findings. Our agreement with this last contention makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other arguments, and we may assume, though we do not decide, that the tariff provisions are not invalid for any of the other reasons assigned.
The Commission's justification of the tolerance regulations as not limiting liability rests upon two distinct propositions: (1) that there is present in every case of eggs at destination physical damage not "caused by" the railroads -- and hence for which they are not liable under § 20(11) -- in the amount of the specified percentages; and (2) that the deduction of those percentages from damage claims operates merely to prevent liability for such damage from being improperly imposed on the railroads. We
shall accept for purposes of discussion the validity of the first proposition. The infirmity we find in the Commission's report is, rather, that the second proposition is simply assumed, and is supported by no findings upon which we can say that the Commission's conclusion was reasonably based. Such a conclusion being essential to remove the tolerance provisions from the prohibition of § 20(11), the lack of findings necessary to justify that conclusion renders invalid the Commission's order approving the tolerance regulations. See Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 282 U. S. 215. Indeed, so far does the report fail to support the Commission's conclusion that it tends affirmatively to support precisely the opposite conclusion -- namely, that the tolerances do unlawfully limit liability. We know of no better way to illustrate the inadequacies of the report than by showing the manner in which the inferences raised by it and unanswered by the Commission would, if accepted, lead to that opposing conclusion.
In the first place, we are unable to discover in the report any showing that damage claims include -- or should reasonably be deemed to include -- the exempt damage which is to be deducted from them. At common law, proof that a case of eggs contained a specified amount of damage for which the carrier was not liable would afford no defense to a damage claim not shown to include that damage. To complete the defense, some showing that the damage claimed included the exempt damage would be required, such as evidence that all of the damage had been found and claimed. Similarly, to justify a regulation authorizing the deduction from damage claims of a tolerance representing exempt damage, some basis for inferring that damage claims ordinarily include such damage would seem required, such as a finding that the type of inspection upon which damage claims are based is adequate to reveal substantially all the damage present in a case.
Far from making such a finding, however, the Commission report indicates that damage claims normally do not include all the damage present in a case. As described by the Commission, the customary inspection at destination upon which damage claims are based is simply a visual examination of a layer of 36 eggs at a time, continuing only until a layer in the case with no visible damage is found, at which point none of the succeeding layers is even looked at. [Footnote 11] Inasmuch as "damage" of the sort represented by the tolerances includes even the most minor shell imperfections, the inference seems inevitable that much damage is overlooked. This inference is strengthened by the Commission's statement that much of the damage normally present in a case could be found only "by candling and clicking, and could not be detected by the kind of inspection performed at" destination. [Footnote 12] And that damage claims do not in practice include all damage is further indicated by the Department of Agriculture studies cited by the Commission in which the damage overlooked by customary inspections at destination was found to range between 3.6% and 7.3%. [Footnote 13] Indeed, if the inferences suggested by these latter studies be accepted, it
would appear that there is ordinarily overlooked in the destination inspection -- and hence not included in damage claims -- physical damage nearly equal to or greater than the exempt damage represented by the tolerances. If that be true, a further reduction of the claim by the full amount of the tolerance would necessarily operate to "limit" liability by approximately the full amount of the tolerance.
Nor is it an answer to this that the consignee is entitled to make a more thorough inspection than the prevailing practice entails. By in effect requiring a consignee to prove that his damage claim does not include the exempt damage, the tolerances would impose on the consignee the burden of disproving a defense which at common law it would be the carrier's burden to establish. Whether or not the Commission has power so to alter the burden of proof, there is nothing to indicate that it had any intention of doing so. The Commission seems to have believed that, under the prevailing commercial practices, the carriers were being exposed to an improper liability, and that the tolerances, applied in the same commercial setting, would do no more than remedy that situation. It would pervert the Commission's purpose to deal realistically with a commercial problem now to seek to justify the tolerances on the ground that it is technically possible for consignees, by departing from the normal commercial practices, to avoid the limitation of liability caused by the tolerances. Especially is this true in the absence of any suggestion in the Commission's report that such a complete inspection by consignees would be commercially feasible. [Footnote 14]
Another inadequacy of the Commission's report arises from its failure to distinguish between different kinds of physical damage in the application of the tolerances. The most favorable evidence supporting the Commission's conclusions as to the extent of the damage not "caused by" the railroads was a Department of Agriculture study showing that, at destination, the average case of eggs contains 4.8% "checked" or "stained" eggs and 0.3% broken eggs. [Footnote 15] Presumably, therefore, the tolerances approved by the Commission represent physical damage in the same proportions -- that is, primarily checked and stained eggs with only a nominal percentage of broken eggs. Checked and stained eggs are salable at a reduced price, and therefore, unlike broken eggs, represent only a partial loss. The tariff provisions, however, do not differentiate between these types of damage, and apparently authorize the deduction of the full tolerance without regard to the nature of the damage claimed. But to permit the offsetting of checked and stained eggs, representing only a partial loss, against broken eggs, representing a total loss, would seem necessarily to limit the railroads' proper liability under § 20(11).
A third major respect in which the Commission's report falls short of establishing that the tolerances will not limit
liability results from its failure to consider the relationship between the physical damage represented by the tolerances and the legal loss for which damage claims are asserted. We have thus far assumed that "physical damage" could properly be equated with "loss," and have shown that, even on that assumption, the Commission has not shown the existence of a relationship between the damage represented by the tolerances and that included in damage claims which would justify the deduction authorized by the tariff provisions. In fact, however, it would appear that damage claims are based not on physical damage to individual eggs, but rather on the loss of commercial acceptability of a case of eggs as a whole. As the Commission observed, the "commercially sound" case of eggs invariably contains some damage, [Footnote 16] and it is apparently only when the damage is so great as to make a case commercially unacceptable for its grade that it loses value. When a commercially unsound case is received, the consignee, rather than suffer the presumably greater loss that would result from selling it at a lower grade or as salvage, ordinarily "reconditions" the case by replacing the visibly damaged eggs and, if necessary, the packaging materials. From the character of this process as described by the Commission, [Footnote 17] it is apparent that the purpose is simply to make the case commercially sound, and not to discover and remove all the damage present in the case. The damage claim, if liability is asserted against the carrier, then consists simply of the cost of reconditioning the case -- that is, the labor and material costs plus the loss on the damaged eggs removed. [Footnote 18]
Viewed in the above terms, the probable effect of the tolerances on liability becomes even more apparent. Inasmuch as the highest grade specifications prescribed by the Department of Agriculture permit physical damage of 5%, [Footnote 19] a case of eggs received at destination with only the tolerance damage of 3% or 5% would presumably be considered "commercially sound" and be salable at the full price. Thus, it would seem that presence of the tolerance damage, by itself, causes the consignee no loss and affords no basis for a damage claim, and that it is only when there is additional damage, making it necessary to recondition the case to make it commercially sound, that there is a loss for which a claim may be asserted. And if the additional damage is caused by the railroad, it necessarily follows that the cost of the reconditioning made necessary only because of that damage is a loss "caused by" the railroad within § 20(11). [Footnote 20] Any reduction of the damage claim in such circumstances would thus relieve the carrier of its proper liability.
The Commission's report thus leaves us not merely with uncertainty as to the impact of the tolerances, cf. 294 U. S. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U.S.
499, 294 U. S. 504-505, 294 U. S. 510-511, but with the strong impression that they are likely to operate in a forbidden manner. The report contains no answers to the problems we have raised, if indeed the Commission considered them at all. Since the report falls far short of establishing that the tolerances will not operate to limit carrier liability in violation of § 20(11), the order of the Commission approving the tolerances must be set aside, and the judgment below
Reversed.
* Together with Nos. 7 and 12, Utah Poultry Farmers Cooperative et al. v. United State et al., also on appeals from the same court.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1253, 2325. The Secretary of Agriculture's standing in these proceedings derives from 52 Stat. 36, 7 U.S.C. § 1291(a) and (b).
Utah Poultry & Farmers Cooperative v. United States, 119 F. Supp. 846.
284 I.C.C. 377.
348 U.S. 807.
The Commission found that, on eggs shipped to New York, the average claim per car increased more than 1800% from 1940 to 1947, 284 I.C.C. at 386, 390, and that the total claims paid in 1947 exceeded 50% of the gross revenue on such shipments, id. at 387.
36 Stat. 552, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 15(7).
The tariff provisions as originally filed established 4% and 6% tolerances, as opposed to the 3% and 5% tolerances found reasonable by the Commission. See 284 I.C.C. at 407-408.
Promptly after the Commission's order, the railroads refiled the tariff provisions with the approved percentages. They were permitted to go into effect on May 2, 1952.
It is conceded that § 20(11) codifies the common law rule making a carrier liable, without proof of negligence, for all damage to the goods transported by it unless it affirmatively shows that the damage was occasioned by the shipper, acts of God, the public enemy, public authority, or the inherent vice or nature of the commodity. See, e.g., Bills of Lading, 52 I.C.C. 671, 679; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 U. S. 416, 270 U. S. 421-422; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 226 U. S. 506-507, 226 U. S. 509. The "unavoidable" damage to eggs is claimed to be within the "inherent vice" exception. The appellants contend, however, that the exception does not include damage induced by external force, however slight or unavoidable, but is limited to loss or damage arising solely from the nature of the property without the intervention of human factors, such as loss from decay, fermentation, evaporation, or natural shrinkage. See, e.g., Austin v. Seaboard Airline R. Co., 188 F.2d 239, 240-241; Akerly v. Railway Exp. Agency, 96 N.H. 396, 400-402, 77 A.2d 856, 860-861; Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Mushroom Transp. Co., 351 Pa. 583, 590-591, 41 A.2d 635, 639; Watson Bros. Transp. Co. v. Domenico, 118 Colo. 133, 135-137, 194 P.2d 323, 325.
[Footnote 10]
The Commission found that the increase of damage claims to "substantial amounts" had occurred principally in connection with shipments to certain points in the eastern seaboard territory -- particularly New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston and Newark -- and that "Generally there has been no increase in the damage claims on shell eggs moved by rail to other territories." 284 I.C.C. at 385-386, 392.
284 I.C.C. at 395.
284 I.C.C. at 393-394. In "candling," each egg is placed before a light to disclose defects not otherwise detectable; in "clicking," two eggs are knocked together, the sound revealing shell imperfections.
284 I.C.C. at 396. In answer to the implications of these uncontroverted studies, the Commission simply said:
"The record does not indicate the handling received by those particular shipments after they were delivered to the consignees. It does indicate, however, based on the number and amount of claims, that the inspection of shipments of eggs arriving at New York is being performed with a view to detecting all damaged eggs. Claims in amounts exceeding 50 percent of the revenue on the entire egg traffic to New York in 1947 do not appear to be based on a cursory inspection."
Ibid. But this speculative reasoning hardly overcomes the Commission's own explicit finding of the inadequacy of the destination inspections to discover all the damage.
To the contrary, the report notes that, despite the efforts of packers by careful inspection to eliminate all damage, "absolute perfection is commercially impossible," and a substantial amount is overlooked, 284 I.C.C. at 393, and the difficulties would seem even greater under the more adverse conditions prevailing at destination. Nor do the Department of Agriculture test studies upon which the tolerances were based indicate the feasibility of an inspection adequate to uncover all damage. The usual Department of Agriculture grading inspections involve an examination only of 100 eggs from each of 15 cases out of a carload, 284 I.C.C. at 393, and, while the Commission does not clearly say so, apparently the test studies utilized a similar spot check inspection, from which the total amount of damage was simply inferred. Damage claims, on the other hand, can be asserted only for the damage that is actually found.
284 I.C.C. at 393-394. "Checked" eggs have slight cracks, but the membrane is unbroken; "stained" eggs are sound eggs which have been stained by leakage from other eggs. Id. at 384, 385.
284 I.C.C. at 395. The eggs are simply transferred from the damaged case to a new case a whole layer (36 eggs) at a time, in the course of which any obviously damaged eggs are removed and replaced.
284 I.C.C. at 385, 399.
284 I.C.C. at 401. Of this 5% (for Grade A or AA eggs), no more than 0.5% may consist of broken eggs. As appears above, however, the proportion of broken eggs represented by the tolerances is well within this limit.
It seems immaterial that, in a given case, the consignee might remove more damage than the minimum necessary to make the case commercially sound. The cost of the extensive inspection that would be necessary to assure that precisely the right amount of damage is removed -- a cost the consignee would presumably be entitled to recover -- would defeat the mitigation of damages which is the very purpose of the reconditioning. The carrier can ask no more than that the consignee act reasonably in mitigating damages, and there is no suggestion that the commercially accepted method of reconditioning unsound cases is unreasonable.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring.
It seems desirable to state, summarily, the basis on which I join the court's opinion.
The starting point of the Court's determination of the issue in this case is recognition of the fact that the Cummins Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, § 20(11), does not constitute an affirmative congressional formulation of a carrier's liability for damage to goods transported by it. The legal import of that Amendment is to bar the Interstate Commerce Commission from legalizing tariffs limiting the common law liability of a carrier for such damage. The common law, in imposing liability, dispensed with proof by a shipper of a carrier's negligence in causing the damage. But for breakage unavoidable in the nature of things -- whether nature be operating within a thing or from without, it is equally an "inherent vice" -- there would be no liability, since the common law did not impose a liability unrelated to the carrier's conduct.
These are the general principles to be deduced from the cases decided at common law. A situation as complicated as the one before us precludes mechanical or mathematical application of these generalities. At common law, if a shipper sued for damage to eggs, the carrier
might be able to introduce evidence demonstrating an established percentage of loss not in any sense caused by it. Such fact of inevitable loss could be established by adequately supported averages, and would not require demonstration of the incidence of inevitable preshipment or in-transit damage in a particular shipment. To be sure, the shipper might then reply by proving an inevitable percentage of damage caused by the railroad which was undetected or undetectable at destination. One would have to reason from principle, as it is called, to conclude whether the common law would throw on the carrier the burden of showing that the total amount of such loss was inevitably represented in the shipper's damage claim, or whether it would allow the carrier to subtract this inevitable damage from whatever damage claim was made, and thus throw on the shipper the burden of finding all the damage if he wanted a full recovery.
Likewise, if the common law allowed a carrier to urge that the shipper suffered no loss from the undetected or undetectable damage because he could get full price for the cases containing such damage, it might be equally open to the shipper to urge that the average inevitable loss which was being subtracted from his damage claim was made up in large part of damage which was equally undetectable by ordinary commercial inspection, and could therefore not be represented in the damage claims that were being made. A further complicating factor is the fact that the grade specifications prescribed by the Department of Agriculture allow prescribed percentages of damage. See 284 I.C.C. at 401. For example, 5% shell damage is permitted in Grade AA and Grade A eggs, so that the presence of such damage does not prevent a shipper from receiving full price.
The Cummins Amendment requires that common law principles of liability be not impaired. But the difficulties
of proof and the presence of numerous complicating factors, some of which have been indicated, do not permit dogmatic views regarding the common law's treatment of such a situation as this. The unsuitability of common law proceedings for the trial of such complicated issues was one of the main reasons why the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to deal with problems pertaining to railroad tariffs and the conflicting interests they entail. As long as the Commission is guided by the common law principles governing the carriers' liability and takes due account of all the factors thereby involved, this Court must stay its hands. The order of the Commission in this case, however, is set aside because the Commission has not made clear the basis on which it approved the allowable "tolerances" in the sanctioned tariffs. Since the basis of the Commission's order is not clear, the foundation for the review of the order is wanting. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 294 U. S. 510-511.
This precondition of clarity for the findings of the Commission as a basis for review does not require us to establish the frailty of particular findings or to examine the correctness of alternative meanings to be attributed to dubious findings. An order of the Commission cannot stand if we cannot tell what it has decided or if it leaves foggy the basis of its conclusions.
In joining the opinion of the Court, therefore, I do not read it as implying that, because any proof of tolerances may have infirmities as a matter of mathematical demonstration or may offend theoretical arguments based on laws of probability, it may not satisfy the cruder standards of proof by which adjudications are made in courts of law and which may sustain determinations by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Specifically, I assume that the various inadequacies which generate the uncertainty
in which the Commission's report leaves us are not to be deemed controlling rules of law in allowing the Commission to ascertain inevitable preshipment or in-transit damage to eggs, i.e., tolerances, by such substantiality of proof as is appropriate to the subject matter.
MR. JUSTICE MINTON, with whom MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE BURTON join, dissenting.
The Court's opinion does not meet the issue in this case, as I see it. The principal question, as was freely conceded at the argument, was whether the Interstate Commerce Commission had the power to promulgate the regulation under § 20(11). The Court now accepts for the sake of argument that the Commission had the power, and then proceeds to find the regulation unfair and unreasonable, although a similar regulation had been in effect since 1919. See National Poultry, Butter & Egg Assn. v. New York Central R. Co., 52 I.C.C. 47.
In an earlier case in which the Commission had under consideration a tariff which provided certain deductions as an incident to the natural shrinkage of grain, it was claimed that the carrier could not so limit its liability, because it violated § 20(11). The Commission said:
"There appears to be little or no merit in the contention that the rule violates the inhibition clause of the act against the limitation of liability, for the limitation is not against losses caused by the carrier or its connections, but rather against liability for losses due to the inherent nature of the commodities themselves and attributable to no human agency."
A. B. Crouch Grain Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co., 41 I.C.C. 717-718. See also The Cummins Amendment, 33 I.C.C. 682.
For loss in transportation due to the inherent nature of the goods, a carrier is not liable. Chesapeake & O. R.
Co. v. A. F. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 U. S. 416. Carrier liability must be limited to damage "caused by it." Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491. A tolerance regulation that fairly takes into consideration the inherent nature of the goods and the damage existing prior to receipt by the carrier, as this regulation does, is not prohibited by § 20(11). Obviously there could not be a search and determination egg by egg as to whether the breakage was due to the fault of the carrier or to the inherent nature of the commodity. I think the Commission had the power to promulgate regulations prescribing, after full hearing, a reasonable deduction for loss due to the inherent defects of the commodity transported. The nature of the commodity and the impossibility of deciding this humpty-dumpty question of who or what broke the egg is a proper subject for regulation. Such a regulation would not be a limit of liability, but a yardstick for measuring the damage not caused by the carrier, but due to the inherent nature of the commodity.
What the Commission did, after long investigation and experience with similar regulations since 1919, was to order that, as to shell eggs packaged at railpoint of origin, no claim should be allowed for damages not in excess of 3%. If in excess of 3%, there could be recovery on showing that the damage was caused by the carrier. For eggs packaged off the railhead, the tolerance was 5%.
As the basis for its action, the Commission specifically found:
"We find that the present 5 percent tolerance on eggs, other than those rehandled and repacked at the rail point of origin, is not shown to be unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. We further find that the proposed tolerances of 4 percent on eggs packed at the rail point of origin, and 6 percent on eggs packed at points other than the rail point of origin have not
been justified, but that tolerances of 3 and 5 percent, respectively, would be reasonable. . . ."
284 I.C.C. at 403. The Commission report embodies basic findings to support this conclusion. For example, the Commission concluded, on the basis of certain Department of Agriculture studies, that 3.4% damage is the typical average damage existing in shipments of eggs when loaded into railroad cars at points of origin, and that an average of 1.7% damage was "incident to the movement in transit." 284 I.C.C. at 393-394. Further, the Commission found that the commercial destination inspections at New York, the most important terminal for eggs shipped by rail, are "performed with a view to detecting all damaged eggs." Id. at 396. The tolerances represent the considered judgment of the Commission, after hearing voluminous evidence as to the nature of shell eggs and the way they are handled at railpoint, off railpoint, and during shipment. I cannot say that this is not an allowable judgment for the Commission to make. Certainly the treatment of this case by the majority does not make for clarity and understanding, and it leaves yet undecided the question whether the Commission has the power to make an order establishing such a regulation or tariff. I think the regulation is an adequate commercial approximation of noncarrier damage, and is reasonable and within the power of the Commission to make.
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth at length in the opinion of the District Court, 119 F. Supp. 846, I would affirm the judgment.
Oral Argument - October 12, 1955 (Part 1)
Second Party
Argued


Happy Day After Thanksgiving! Or should I say happy Turkey Noodle Soup Day, which is our favorite way to use leftovers. We didn't go shopping and plan on sticking close to home all weekend.
There are still flowers in the garden.
Figs and Pomegranates to enjoy.
There are Christmas decorations to get started on and walks to take. The view outside my window has been a parade of neighbors and families enjoying this beautiful day. I plan to join them soon. I hope you are also having a good time.
A tree went down in our little forest and we actually heard it fall. A quick snap followed by a brushing noise just as I walked by on the sidewalk.
Why did this happen? The tree seemed fine right up until that moment and it's been a good year for trees with plenty of rain.
First thing first. As it toppled the top branches snagged on Red Tip Photinia and the heavy tree trunk was hovering over the path to the gate so we needed to cut it down safely.
A little investigation of the remaining stump revealed that one side has rotted. On closer inspection there was charring at the break and a few more charred spots along the trunk. Lightning. Even though the live oak tree was very close to the house and it was not even the tallest tree among others nearby. Live oaks often grow sideways looking for light creating bends and crooks in their trunks. Lightning damage was most severe at the bend in the tree about six feet above ground, and that's where it broke off, apparently many months after the event.
A few more chainsaw cuts...which reveal the tree died on one side but not the other.
And it's off to the woodpile.
I'll miss it. In this before photo it's the tree to the left of the bench is now missing.
The area looks more open and more light gets through the office window. I'm not sure I like that. At this point it feels more like something is missing. Such a different view now.
Are you wondering what happened to the bench? A few days before the tree fell we moved it to protect newly planted sedge from deer, not as a place to sit. Deer love making tracks through soft new soil and uprooting new plants so this is just one of our tricks to protect plants.
Just another day in the garden....it's always something.
Our butterfly season is in full swing. At the beginning of October I posted a recommended list of native butterfly nectar plants from the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center which I also grow in my garden. As it turns out the butterflies voted with their wings and declared the Crucita or Blue Mistflower (Chromolaena odorata) the undisputed champion of native butterfly plants. In fact, of all the plants on the vaunted list, only my Gregg's Mistflower attracted a significant number of butterflies. Meanwhile, our Central Texas gardening community on Facebook has been brimming with stunning butterfly videos that are the envy of our friends in other parts of the country. Some of you have already seen most of these photos and videos on my Facebook page, but I'm posting again for Wildlife Wednesday to share with readers who might not have seen them. Wildlife Wednesday is hosted on the first Wednesday of each month by Tina at "My Gardener says...". Tina features Blue Mistflower and many of the same butterflies this month too but I don't think she'll mind. We live in the same region, about 70 miles apart so it's to be expected from time to time.
Of course I have them in motion. A Fall bloomer just in time for butterfly season, it's been hopping like this for 10 days and still going even as the flowers fade.
Like Gregg's Mistflower on steroids, Chromolaena odorata is at least 11' tall, six feet wide and covered head-to-toe with butterflies.
Blue Mistflower is just so amazing as a butterfly nectar plant, especially attractive to Monarchs and Queens. I counted 10 or more Monarch butterflies at a time on this one plant and I have two in the garden.
Let's take a closer look at some of my other butterfly visitors in October.
Common mestra was a new one for me this year. Usually found farther south along the border, it seems they made their way as far north as Austin according to my blogger friends.
Unmistakable Gulf Fritillary so bright in the sunlight I can see it from the house 40 feet away.
Locally prolific Queens moved over from Gregg's mistflower for a few days too.
Giant Swallowtail is a favorite of mine.
Meanwhile, Black Swallowtails prefer Gomphrena 'Fireworks'.
Be sure to check out "My Gardener Says..." for more Wildlife Wednesday.


It hasn't been a great quality final the one that took place last night in the ATP Challenger of Cordenons, both athletes didn't play their best tennis, which was a shame considering the great tennis both showed in their way to the final.
French player, Gregoire Burquier started the match with a lot of tension, he knew his opponent wasn't going to give him free points, so he had to be aggressive and take him by surprise with sudden acceleration and other variations, but those attempts at first were all due to end up with errors. After the match he would indeed said: "I didn't play my best tennis, I don't know maybe because it's a final and maybe because it's him, I know he won a lot of tournaments and I was a bit afraid of him and only in the end I saw that I could play well, but it was too late, you know, he's very solid, so I needed my best tennis to win"
On the other side of the net, the hot-form Spanish seemed to struggle finding the right null and hence his gamed lacked of a true aggressive mindset for most of the first and part of the second set.
"It was difficult" said Carreno Busta at the end of the match, "it's strange because I think I played bad, not my best tennis, he played very nervously, so it was really strange"
Yet this was quite enough because Burquier was too erratic and his winners couldn't fully make up for the errors. The first set ended 6 games to 4 for Carreno, but despite the close scoreline, it didn't really seem he could lose this match.
The second set started with a good reaction from Gregoir, who took a break lead in the first game and hold for 2-0, but once again his level couldn't keep up and Carreno Busta immediately broke back. On 3-all Burquier clearly started to feel the moment and got broken from 30-0 with four unforced errors in a row. The break gave Carreno Busta the right boost of confidence to finally try to go more for his shots and that gave the final a last taste of quality, because contrary to the public expectations, Burquier finally started to play his game and the last few games were the best of the match. Nonetheless Carreno Busta could hold in both his service games and close the match with a terrific backhand winner worth of his 10th title of the season, the 3rd Challenger.
For Burquier remains the satisfaction of a good week, despite the bitter loss in this final: "It's been a positive week for me, I had a very difficult season so far, but here I defeated very good players this week and felt my game, so I hope it's another season starting for the next tournaments".
Despite his ranking Carreno Busta won't play the US Open, but will play two more Challengers in Italy in Como and Genova, before going to Asia, he feels quite comfortable about going to the ATP Tour: "I played in Portugal an ATP and reached the Semifinal, so I think I am ready to play with tops" and at the question if he's ready for that on hard courts too, smiling he said "I will try to".