Law The final questions are whether, under federal common law: (1) Airoute is liable for the loss to the shipment; and (2) Air-oute’s liability is limited. 1. Airoute’s Liability To establish a prima facie case of non-delivery under federal common law, Ingram Micro must show that Airoute received the shipment in good order and condition, that Airoute failed to deliver the shipment to Pennsylvania, and that Ingram Micro incurred damages. See Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 L.Ed.2d 194 (1964). The burden of proof then shifts to Airoute to show that it was free from negligence and that the non-delivery was due to an exceptional circumstance. See id.; see also Shippers Nat'l Freight Claim Council, Inc. v. ICC, 712 F.2d 740, 745 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). There are five such exceptional
holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that under federal common law a common carrier is liable for the full extent of the loss to goods it transports unless the loss was caused by particular exceptional circumstances holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else