Haida purchased a batch of goods, concluded Carriage Agreement with Defendant carrier Hualong, and entrusted carrier to transport three boxes of goods from Jingjiang terminal to Changsha, Yueyang and Miluo in Hunan respectively. After that, carrier and the representative of Defendant actual carrier M.V. “YUAN DONG 98” concluded Voyage Charterparty (Carriage Contract), agreeing that M.V. “YUAN DONG 98” would transport the goods from Jingjiang to Yueyang, the waybill stating that the shipper was Haida, and the reasonable loss was 2‰ in both contracts. The goods were underwritten by Plaintiff insurer. Because during the loading process, sudden thunder shower, although the actual carrier and so on to cover the cabin, but the goods was wet. After the ship arrived at Yueyang to wait for the port, the representative of Haida found that goods in the hold was mildew when it boarded the ship to inspect goods. After investigation, goods in the hold was wet by water, which eventually led to 368.61 tons of goods mildew damage. Insurer actually paid insurance compensation of 181,341.92 yuan to Haida, and obtained the letter of transfer of rights and interests. Now insurer filed an action before the court, requiring two Defendants to pay the insurance money 181,341.92 yuan and interest. The court held that (1) two Defendants should be jointly and severally liable, because the relevant provisions of the Goods Regulations applicable to the rights and obligations of shipper and carrier were indicated on the waybill involved, and the Goods Regulations provided for the joint liability system of carrier and actual carrier to shipper in the transport of coastal and inland goods, which had nothing to do with whether the Goods Regulations were repealed. In addition, China’s Maritime Code stipulated the joint liability system between carrier and actual carrier for shipper’s goods damage, and the joint liability system could also be applied by analogy in this case. (2) The amount of loss compensated by two Defendants to insurer should be deducted from the price of 2‰ of reasonable loss, because Haida and carrier, carrier and actual carrier agreed in the contract of carriage or charter party involved that the reasonable loss was 2‰.