Plaintiff consignee, buyer of a shipment of glass, made a booking with Defendant Quanzhou Antong to transport the cargo from Lianyungang to Chaozhou by ship and road. Quanzhou Antong passed the booking to Defendant Lianyungang Baoyuan, which signed the multimodal transport contract with the consignee, and Quanzhou Antong did the land carriage. When the glass arrived in Chaozhou, the consignee found part of the cargo damaged in the course of offloading and refused to offload the remaining cargo. The evaluator was brought to the scene to do cargo survey. Thus, the consignee sued both Defendants to claim damage to cargo. The court held that Lianyungang Baoyuan was the multimodal operator and Quanzhou Antong was actual carrier of the land carriage, and the consignee could sue both for the damage to cargo; it was uncertain where the cargo damage occurred, so Quanzhou Antong was not liable; as shown by the available evidence, the cargo damage was caused by Lianyungang Baoyuan’s improper transportation and the consignee’s improper packing and securing, so they were equally liable; in lack of clear evidence, the court exercised discretion to assess the consignee’s loss to be RMB44,571.56, so the consignee could recover half of that from Lianyungang Baoyuan.