Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 151 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 151 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

where the voyage is a long one. The
Maggie Hammond (U. S.), 9 Wall. 435,
19 L. Ed. 772.

54. Instances of unseaworthiness. — At-
las Portland Cement Co. 7'. Dougherty
Co., 205 Fed. 508, 123 C. C. A. 576; Wright
v. Grace & Co., 203 Fed. 360; The Listie,
197 Fed. 1022; Braker v. Jarvis Co.. 166
Fed. 987; The Willie. 134 Fed. 759; Bush
Co. V. Central R. Co., 130 Fed. 222, af-
firmed in 149 Fed. 734, 79 C. C. A. 440.

A vessel cannot be said to be seaworthy
for a voyage where, at its inception, she

has little, if any, metacentric height, and
a list of 8 or 9 degrees, and her cargo
weight is so distributed that her insta-
bility must increase as she proceeds from
the consumption of coal and water. The
Oneida, 128 Fed. 087, 63 C. C. A. 239, re-
versing 108 Fed. 886.

A lighter, so constructed that the pres-
ence of any water in the hold rendered
it unstable when loaded, which overturned
shortly after being loaded, when the
weather was clear, the wind light, and the
water smooth except from a slight swell
caused by a passing steamer, by reason
of water entering her hold through seams
which were insufficiently calked, must be
held unseaworthy when loaded. Nord-
Deutscher Lloyd v. Insurance Co., 110
Fed. 420, 49 C. C. A. 1, affirming 106 Fed.

A steamship of a very tender model
(being unusually narrow in proportion to
her depth, with a "tumble-home," materi-
ally increasing her disadvantage), bound
from San Francisco to Panama, had 47
tons of lumber on deck, and was other-
wise so loaded as to have an excessive
roll, from which she recovered slowly. In
a storm of no extraordinary severity, it
was found that she was neither able to
keep out of the trough of the sea. nor
to ride safely in it; and she was finally
thrown on her beams and sunk by three
successive heavy seas. Held, that such
loading, combined with her tender model,
constituted unseaworthiness. The Col-
ima, 82 Fed. 665.

The chain locker of a steamship, which
extended from the bottom to the main
deck, was not watertight, and during a
voyage across the North Atlantic in win-
ter sea water entered through the chain
pipes, and damaged sugar which was
stowed next tlie locker, without dunnage
properly laid to protect it against leak-
age. The ends of the pipes on the fore-
castle deck had been stopped or covered
at the beginning of the voyage, but not
sufficiently to withstand the action of the
seas which broke over such deck, al-
though the weather was no worse than
should reasonably have been anticipated
at that season of the year. Held, that
the ship was liable for the injury to the
cargo. The Palmas, 108 Fed. 87, 47 C.
C. A. 220.

Failure to repair hatch coamings, covers
and tarpaulins. — The C. W. Elphicke, 117
Fed. 279, decree affirmed in 122 Fed. 439,
58 C. C. A. 421.

Failure to calk seams in deck. — The
Nellie Floyd, 116 Fed. 80, affirmed in



§ 4302

or does not •''^ constitute unseaworthiness are set out in the notes. The shipper
is under no obhgation to see that the vessel is seaworthy or tit to perform the
voyage. '•'' Where a contract provided that respondent company should furnish
good, sound, insurable boats, where unseaworthy boats were supplied, the re-
spondent was not entitled to resort to the agreement that the shipper should be
liable for loss of goods in case of marine disaster. '''^

Inspection. — It is the duty of the carrier to have his vessel often examined

Neilson v. Coal, etc., Supply Co., 122
Fed. 617, 60 C. C. A. 17.5.

Defective compass. — Going to sea with
a compass known to be defective consti-
tutes unseaworthiness. Richelieu, etc..
Nav. Co. V. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 136
U. S. 408, 34 L. Ed. 398, 10 S._ Ct. 934.

Defect in plate covering bilge pump
hole. — The Edwin L Morrison, 153 U. S.
199. 3S L. Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct. 823.

Failure to properly close and secure
port holes may constitute unseaworthi-
ness, but not necessarily so; that depends
upon the circumstances. International
Nav. Co. V. Farr, etc., Mfg. Co., 181 U.
S. 218, 45 L. Ed. 830, 21 S. Ct. 591; The
Silvia, 171 U. S. 462, 43 L. Ed. 241, 19
S. Ct. 7; see The Manitoba, 104 Fed. 145,
where failure to close port rendered ship

55. What does not constitute unsea-
worthiness. — A vessel was not unsea-
worthy at the beginning of her voyage
because ports between decks, eight inches
in diameter, and a few feet above the
water line, were closed only with the glass
covers, and the hatches were l)attened
down, where the hatches could be taken
off in two minutes, the cargo was so
stowed as to afford free access to the
ports, and they were provided with addi-
tional covers of iron, which could be
closed if deemed necessary. The Silvia,
19 S. Ct. 7, 171 U. S. 462, 43 L. Ed. 241,
affirming judgment, 68 Fed. 230, 15 C.
C. A. 362.

A vessel is not unseaworthy in respect
of her cargo by reason of the stowage of
coffee in a compartment adjoining that
in which water ballast is carried, though
the water pipe connecting with the tank
passes through the compartment contain-
ing the coffee. Steinwender v. The Mex-
ican Prince, 82 Fed. 484. decree affirmed
in The Mexican Prince, 91 Fed. 1003, 34
C. C. A. 168.

The placing of the filling pipe extend-
ing from the engine room of a steamer
to a trimming tank in tlie forepeak upon
the floor of the intermediate hold, boxed
in, and extending through the collision
bulkhead, held not a faulty construction,
which rendered the vessel unseaworthy
as to cargo carried in such hold, where
the evidence showed that many contem-
porary vessels were so constructed and
rated A 1 by Lloyds. But the omission
to fit such pipe with a valve or stopcock
within the forepeak, or where it passed
from the hold to prevent the flooding of

the hold in case of a break in the pipe
rendered her unseaworthy as to such
cargo and liable for its injury from the
flooding of the hold in consequence of
the breaking of the pipe through some
fault of construction. The Indrapura, 178
Fed. 591.

Absence of deck sounding pipes. — The
Mexican Prince, 91 Fed. 1003, 34 C. C.
A. 168, affirming Steinwender v. The
Alexican Prince, 82 Fed. 484.

An obstruction in a water pipe passing
through a cargo compartment, by a piece
of wood, at the outset of a voyage, so
that water gets into the compartment,
does not amount to unseaworthiness, be-
cause incidental and temporary in char-
acter. Decree, Steinwender v. The Mexi-
can Prince, 82 Fed. 484. affirmed in The
Mexican Prince, 91 Fed. 1003, 34 C. C.
A. 168.

A leakage sluiceway between two com-
partments of a vessel does not consti-
tute unseaworthiness. The British King,
92 Fed. 1018, 35 C. C. A. 159, affirming
89 Fed. 872.

The existence of two worm-holes in
the bow of a new vessel, about three-
eighths of an inch in diameter, there be-
ing no doubt that these holes were in the
plank when put on the vessel, does not
amount to unseaworthiness. Dupont, etc.,
Co. V. Vance (U. S.), 19 How. 162, 15
L. Ed. 584.

Defective tubes in a tubular boiler. —
The fact that 26 of the tubes of a tubular
boiler which had 144 tubes, were plugcd
up because they leaked, does not render
the vessel unseaworthy. The Francis
•Wright, 105 U. S. 381, 26 L. Ed. 1100.

Defective construction and working of
the refrigerating room and apparatus con-
necting therewith, either from inherent
defects in said apparatus, or from not
using a sufficient quantity of ice, does
not render a vessel unseaworthy when a
warranty says that the vessel was sea-
worthy for navigation. The Francis
Wright, 105 U. S. 381, 26 E. Ed. 1100.

56. Obligation of shipper. — See The
Northern Belle (U. S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19
E. Ed. 746; The Edwin I. Morrison, 153
U. S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct. 823;
Work V. Leathers, 97 U. S. 379, 24 L.
Ed. 1012; Bush Co. v. Central R. Co.. 130
Fed. 322, affirmed in 149 Fed. 734, 79 C
C. A. 440.

57. Sanbern v. Wright, etc.. Lighterage
Co., 171 Fed. 449, affirmed in 179 Fed.
1021, 102 C. C. A. 666.

§§ 4302-4304



and thoroughly inspected so as to be sure of its condition. ^^

Proximate Cause of Injury. — Where a steamer was run upon the beach
solely because a leak had been discovered which could not be controlled, and wa-
ter immediately came in over her deck, so that merchandise was injured, the
proximate cause of the injury was the leak, and not the stranding of the vessel. ^^

§ 4303. Improper Stowage or Overloading. — The requirement of sea-
worthiness at the beginning of a voyage includes, not only seaworthiness in hull
and equipment, but also in the stowage of the cargo.^*^ A ship is not seaworthy
when from her improper loading she is rendered unfit to encounter the ordinary
perils of navigation which could reasonably have been anticipated on the pro-
jected voyage.^ 1 A carrier is liable where a loss is due to the overloading of
its vessel.^- The acceptance of cargo by the master of a lighter without ob-
jection to the quantity is an implied representation that the vessel is seaworthy
for the carriage of such quantity .'^•'^ No custom allowing the loading of lumber
on deck can validate navigation by an unstable ship, or excuse the neglect to load
sufficiently heavy weights below, especially where the ship is naturally of a tender
model. ^'^

§ 4304. Incompetency or Insufficiency of Crew. — The want of an ex-
perienced master or to have an incompetent crew will render a vessel unsea-

58. Duty of inspection. — The Edwin I.
Morrison, 153 U. S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688,
14 S. Ct. 823. See The Northern Belle
(U. S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746.

A steamship originally constructed for
passengers, but later used for the carriage
of goods, had ports in the lower between-
decks, which were submerged when slie
was fully loaded. These were equipped
with glass bull's-eyes, and shutters for
properly closing the same. On commenc-
ing to load cargo at Batoum the ports
in a compartment were examined and
found properly closed, and the compart-
ment was then partially filled with wool.
The vessel stopped at a number of other
ports on the Black Sea and the Mediter-
ranean, and took on more cargo; the
hatchway leading to such compartment
being used, and finally closed when she
started on the voyage for New York.
Shortly afterward water was discovered
in the hold under such compartment, and
on examination it was found that one of
the glass bull's-eyes had been stolen, and
that the water had entered through such
port and damaged the cargo. The brass
pins holding the bull's-eyes in a number
of the other ports had also been removed.
No inspection of the ports had been made
after the loading commenced at Batoum.
Held, that due diligence on the part of
the owners to render the vessel sea-
worthy when she commenced the voyage
required that such inspection should have
been made the last thing before access to
the ports was cut of?, and that the dam-
age to cargo was due to unseaworthiness
for which the vessel was liable. The
Tenedos, 137 Fed. 443, affirmed in 151
Fed. 1022, 82 C. C. A. 671.

59. Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Ban-
croft-Whitney Co., 94 Fed. 180, 36 C. C.

A. 135, affirming 78 Fed. 155.

60. Improper stowage or overloading.

— Corsar v. Spreckels & Bros. Co., 141
Fed. 260. 72 C. C. A. 378; Knohr v. Pa-
cific Creosoting Cp., 181 Fed. 856; The
Medea. 179 Fed. 781, 103 C. C. A. 273.

61. Steamship Wellesley Co. v. Hooper
& Co., 185 Fed. 733.

The turret steamship Royal Sceptre,
chartered to carry a full cargo of que-
bracho wood from the River Plate to New
York, loaded at points up the river and
had proceeded down to Rosario when,
turning on a hard astarboard helm to
reach her anchorage, under the influence
of the current and possibly of grazing on
the bottom, she careened to starboard
until she had a list of 170 degrees, and
dumped the most of her deck load, which
was lost. When she left her last load-
ing port, she had a deck load of over 700
tons of wood, piled to a height of 11 feet,
besides 100 tons of coal, her ballast tanks
were nearly empty to lessen her draft in
the river, and her range of stability was
about one-fourth that calculated for her
at sea. There was nothing in the con-
dition of the river or current unusual or
which should not have been expected.
Held, that the loss of cargo was due to
the imseaworthiness of the ship when she
finished loading and commenced her voy-
age by reason of her instability because
of improper loading, and that she was
liable therefor. The Royal Sceptre, 187
Fed. 224.

62. Overloading vessel. — Aststrup v.
Lewy, 19 Fed. 536; Barker v. The Swal-
low, 44 Fed. 771; The Dana, 190 Fed. 650;
The G. B. Boren, 132 Fed. 887.

63. The Dana, 190 Fed. 650.

64. The Colima, 82 Fed. 665.



§§ 4304-4305

worthy/^-'' The vessel must be provided with a crew, adequate in number and
sufficient and competent fbr the voyage, with reference to its length and other
particulars, and with a competent and skillful master, of sound judgment and
discretion ; and, in general, especially in steamships and vessels of the larger
size, witli some person of sufficient ability and experience to supply his place
tem])orarily, at least, in case of his sickness or physical discfualification. Own-
ers must see to it that the master is qualified for his situation, as they are, in
general, in respect to goods transported for hire, responsible for his acts and

§ 4305. Navigation of Vessel. — The carrier by water contracts for the use
of due care and skill in the navigation of the vessel and in carrying the goods.^'^
The carrier impliedly undertakes that he has a competent knowledge of the
navigation, and he will be liable for a loss occasioned by a want of such knowl-
edge.*^^ A peril of the sea does not excuse the carrier from a loss or injury to
the goods committed to his care if his own negligence or want of skill has con-
tributed to the result.*^^'^ The officers of steamers plying the western waters must
be held to the full measure of responsibility in navigating streams where bridges
are built across them."" A vessel proceeding in the night and in a fog into port

65. Incompetency or insufficiency of
crew. — Marine Fire Ins. Co. v. Burnett,
29 Tex. 433. See Northern Commercial
Co. V. Lindblom, 103 Fed. 250, 89 C. C.
A. 230.

66. Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.),
21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; The Lady Pike
(U. S.), 21 Wall. 1, 22 L. Ed. 499. See
Bell V. Reed (Pa.), 4 Bin. 127, 5 Am.
Dec. 398.

To be seaworthy the vessel must be
well manned. Collier v. Valentine, 11
Mo. 299, 49 Am. Dec. 81.

"It is the duty of the owners of a
steam vessel carrying goods and mer-
chandise, not only to provide a sea-
worthy vessel, but they must provide a
full complement of licensed officers and
a crew adequate in number and compe-
tent for their duty with reference to all
the exigencies of the intended route.
The officers and crew must not only be
competent for the ordinary duties of an
uneventful voyage, but for any exigency
that is likely to happen, such, for exam-
ple, as the striking of a ship on a reef of
rocks." Northern Commercial Co. v.
Lindljlom, 1(52 Fed. 350, 89 C. C. A. 230.

67. Negligence in navigation. — ^Com-
pania, etc., La Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U.
S. 104, 42 L. Ed. 398, 18 S. Ct. 12. See
Stockton Milling Co. v. California Nav.,
etc., Co., 165 Fed. 356; The Gladys, 159
Fed. 698, 86 C. C. A. 506; Bradley v. Le-
high Valley R. Co., 145 Fed. 569, affirmed
in 153 Fed. 350, 82 C. C. A. 426. See
ante, "Incompetency or Insufficiency of
Crew," § 4304.

Instances of negligent navigation. —
The steamship A., while on a voyage
from Inagua, Bahama Islands, to New
York, was stranded on the coast of Ma-
ryland. In actions brought on her bills
of lading to recover for the loss and
damage to cargo resulting, it appeared
that on January 19 the master supposed

himself to be in latitude 36 deg. 40 min.,
longitude 74 deg. 10 min., and the next
day, at 1:25 a. m., was on a bar four
miles north of Green Run inlet, the
weather being thick, and no explanation
was given of the vessel's course mean-
time. Held, that if her course was di-
rectly between those two points, it was
clearly negligence; and that if the mas-
ter supposed himself on January 19 to
be in that latitude and longitude, it was
his duty to verify his supposition by
sounding; and that the failure of the ship
to deliver her cargo was caused by this
negligence. The Alpin, 23 Fed. 815.

A steamship, running past Old Provi-
dence Island, in mild weather, had the
land in sight for 40 minutes. A slight
haze rendered distance deceptive, and
the master supposed himself some seven
miles off shore. No soundings were
taken and no calculations made to verify
the supposed distance. In fact, the ves-
sel was within a mile and a half of the
shore, and afterwards struck upon a
coral reef located on the charts with
which the vessel was provided. Held,
that her navigation was negligent. The
City of Para, 44 Fed. 689.

68. Morel v. Roe (Ga.), R. M. Charlt. 19.

69. The Nith, 36 Fed. 383, 13 Sawy.

While a snag in one of our western
rivers is a peri! of navigation, if a vessel
is wrecked upon one through the negli-
gence of the carrier, or of those whom
he employs, the carrier is not absolved.
Christenson v. American Kxp. Co., 15
Minn. 370, Gil. 30S, 3 Am. Rep. 123, 137.

70. Rivers spanned by bridges. — The
Mollie Mohlcr (U. S.), 31 Wall. 330, 32
L. Ed. 485.

The Longfellow, a large river steamer,
was starting on a trip from Cincinnati
to New Orleans, carrying passengers and
a valuable cargo. She had pilots on

§§ 4305-4306



is bound to proceed at a low rate of speed. "^ The rule which imputes careless-
ness to the captain whose boat strikes a known rock or shoal, unless driven by a
tempest, is only applicable to the navigation of the ocean, where the rocks and
shoals are marked upon maps and may be avoided, and does not apply to the
navigation of rivers. In such navigation, each case must be governed by its own
vnrcumstances, and be tested by the course usually pursued by skillful pilots in
Fuch cases. ■^^ Negligence is not a conclusion of law from the fact that a boat
passes, in the night, a point in the river known to be difficult for boats to pass.'^^
Negligence must be presumed where a steamboat proceeding quietly up the Ohio
River was run into the bank by the pilot so hard as to knock a hole into the bot-
tom of the boat big enough to sink it, and there was light enough to see, and no
reason shown for the accident.'^'*

§ 4306. Negligence in Discharging or in Caring for Goods after Dis-
charge. — Loss or Injury during Discharge.''-'^ — A carrier by water is liable
for loss of or injury to goods caused by its negligence in discharging the cargo.'"'

board, and was assisted by a tug. While
the smokestacks were lowered to permit
her passage under the suspension bridge
at Cincinnati, as was frequently the case,
the pilot house became so filled with
smoke that the pilot could not see to
navigate the vessel past the railroad
bridge below, but she continued at full
speed; and, her side striking one of the
piers, she was broken in two by the
current and sunk, some of her passen-
gers being drowned, and her cargo lost.
The river was high and the current
strong. No effort to stop the vessel was
made until too late to avoid the collision.
No arrangement appeared to have been
m.ade with the tug to secure efficient aid
in the management and handling of the
vessel. Held, under the facts shown,
that the disaster was due to negligence
of the officers and pilots, in failing to
make such arrangements, and in not
stopping and backing at once when the
smoke so obscured their vision as to
make the attempt to pass the lower
bridge at that time unsafe. Memphis,
etc., Packet Co. z'. Overman Carriage
Co., 93 Fed. 246.

71. Vessel proceeding in night and in
fog.— The Portsmouth (U. S.). 9 Wall.
682, 19 L. Ed. 754.

72. Collier v. Valentine, 11 Mo. 299,
49 Am. Dec. 81.

73. Passing difficult point in night. —
Ready v. v^teamboat Highland Mary, 17
Mo. 461.

74. Running into river bank. — Louis-
ville, etc.. Packet Co. v. Smith, 60 S. W.
524, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1323.

75. Loss or injury during discharge. —
See ante, "Means for Loading and Un-
loading," § 1021.

76. A lighter was loaded with 100 bar-
rels of cement in the hold and a large
number of rolls of bagging, weighing 253
tons, piled upon the deck. It was the
duty of respondent to transfer the load
to a steamer; and when a portion of the
bagging had been unloaded, all of which

was taken from the side next the
steamer, the lighter listed to the other
side, and a portion of the bagging was
thrown overboard, and lost or damaged.
The load was unusual in weight and
height, but not to an extent to endanger
it if properly handled. It was properly
loaded, and the lighter had been brought
with it a considerable distance in safety.
Held, that the fact of its unusual height
required that in unloading the removal
should be distributed as evenly as possi-
ble over the whole load, which was also
shown to be the usual way, and that the
negligent manner of unloading was the
cause of the vessel's listing, and rendered
respondent liable for the damage. Mc-
Allister v. Southern Pac. Co., Ill Fed.

Cargo was shipped at Baltimore on re-
spondent's steamship Bulgaria to be car-
ried to Hamburg. When the ship
reached a point in the river Elbe some
14 miles below Hamburg, owing to the
low water in the river she anchored and
proceeded to discharge her cargo into
lighters owned by respondent, as was
customary and provided for in the bill of
lading. The Patricia, another ship
owned by respondent, was also anchored
al)ove the Bulgaria a sufficient distance
away, so that' the two vessels swung
clear of each other with the changes
of the tide. Early on the morning of the
second day at the commencement of the
flood tide when the Bulgaria swung up
stream it was seen that she was likely to
collide with the Patricia, and her en-
gines were started ahead, and a lighter
into which a part of the cargo had been
discharged was cast off and drifting
against the Patricia was injured and
sunk. Held, under the evidence that the
drifting together of the two ships was
caused by the fact that at some time dur-
ing the night the Patricia dragged her
anchor and moved with the tide into dan-
gerous pro-ximity to the Bulgaria, and
that the negligence of the officers of the



§ 4306

An agreement by the owner of a vessel to lighter goods which she had contracted
lo deliver at her anchorage for an agreed compensation, in the absence of a stipu-
lation otherwise therein, imposed on him the obligations of a common carrier,
and as such he became responsible for all goods lost or damaged between the
vessel and shore, unless such loss was occasioned by act of God or the public
enemy." "i" Where a bill of lading consigned a canal iDoat alongside of a steamer
for the purpose of transferring a cargo of iron from the canal boat to the steamer,
.and the iron was properly put in slings in the hold of the canal boat, and two of
the loads fell, from contact with the side of the ship, because there was no guy
to control the slings in rising, the canal boat was not liable for the resulting loss.'^^
Loss or Injury after Discharge. — After the liability of a vessel as a ear-
lier ceases it can be held liable only for negligence in caring for the goods until
their removal by the consignee ; ^^ but it is liable where it leaves the goods in an
exposed position without proper covering, and they are injured by rain.^<^ The
•carrier is not liable for damage to goods by rain before their removal from the
w^harf by the consignee when there has been an actual delivery and acceptance,^^

ships in failing to discover such fact, and
in not taking measures to avert the dan-
ger, rendered respondent liable for the
cargo lost in the lighter. Higgins v.
Hamburg-American Packet Co., 145 Fed.
24. 76 C. C. A. 24.

Discharging upon unsafe pier. — See
Rosenstein v. Vogemann. 184 N. Y. 325,
77 N. E. 625, afBrming 92 N. Y. S. 86,
102 App. Div. 39.

77. Ames Mercantile Co. v. Kimball
Steamship Co., 125 Fed. 332.

78. \"incent v. Hogan, 108 Fed. 428.

79. Loss or injury after discharge, —
The Italia. 187 Fed. 113, 109 C. C. A.
33. modifying decree. 184 Fed. 366.

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 151 of 214)