on the faulty premise that an instruction to use an unsuitable means of transport automatically relieves a carrier of its duty to exercise ordinary care. Under Elmore & Stahl, “the burden of proof is upon the carrier to show ... that it was free from negligence____” Id. at 138, 84 S.Ct. 1142. This requires proof that the carrier “exercise[d] reasonable caret ] under the circumstances.” Federated Dep’t Stores v. Brinke, 450 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th Cir.1971). MAN’s instruction to use allegedly “unsuitable” tarpaulins was but one such circumstance. Advised of MAN’S choice, ASCO had a continuing obligation to act reasonably, under the prevailing circumstances, to prevent damage to the press in whole or in part. See Gordon H. Mooney, Ltd. v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 616 F.2d 619, 625 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R.R., 400
holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer holding that a rule requiring an excess carrier to drop down upon the insolvency of the primary carrier would impermissibly shift the risk of the primary carrier to the excess carrier and would require insurance companies to scrutinize one anothers financial stability before issuing secondary policies