材料:

Some older decisions have held that the carrier，in order to rebut the presumption of liability resulting from the arrival in damaged condition of GOODs shipped undamaged，must prove not only that the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the carrier&39;s part．

Most more recent decisions and authors，however，uphold the view that，in general，the carrier may rebut the claimant&39;s prima facie case simply by proving that the loss was caused by an excepted peril．At that point，the onus switches to the cargo claimant to prove that the true cause of the loss was the carrier&39;s negligence．

Nevertheless certain Hague and Hague/Visby Rules exceptions，expressly or implicitly，also require the carrier to negative its own negligence in proving the exception itself．For example，a clause in the said rules expressly imposes on the carrier the burden of proving that the loss or damage occurred without its actual fault or privity and without any fault or neglect on the part of its servants or agents．

The carrier，however，must truly prove the existence of one or more of the exceptions and their causative role in respect of the loss or damage．Conjectures and speculation do not take the place of hard evidence．A court has held：“Mere speculation will not overcome the prima facie evidence of a clean bill of lading”．

问题：

The carrier will be held liable for the loss or damage if _______．

A.it is proved that he has privity to the loss or damage

B.it is proved that the fault or neglect on his part is not the true cause of the loss or damage

C.it is too onerous for him to demonstrate that the loss or damage is caused by what is beyond his control

D.if there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with old decisions，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with most more recent decisions and authors，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

It is concluded that _______．A.The carrier is not in a position to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils

B.It can not be decided that whether the carrier has to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils because there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

C.The carrier does not have to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils due to the fact that there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

D.The carrier must truly prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils even there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules