Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 175 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 175 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240, 44 L. Ed. 70. Amount of bond and interest. — Tiie
751, 20 S. Ct. 595. It was correct to de- Manitol)a, 122 U. S. 97, 30 L. lul. J095, 7
duct half the value of the cargo from S. Ct. 1158.



§§ 4503-4504



CARRIERS.



4042



the court is not bound to allow interest on the proceeds of the wreck or strip-
pings ; but may in its discretion, allow interest or notJ^

Costs and Interest in Nature of Damages Occasioned by Appeal. — The
act of congress limiting the liability of shipowners in a case of collision does
not release them from the payment of costs in the district court, beyond the
amount of the stipulation filed therefor, if they appear and make defense, nor,
in case they appeal to the circuit court, from the payment of the costs taxable
there, or of interest in the nature of damages occasioned by the appeal.' -

§ 4504. Personal Injuries and Death by Wrongful Act. — The Limited
Liability Act applies to cases of personal injury and death by wrongful act as.
well as to those of loss of, or injury to, property.'^ ^

Conflict of Laws. — Where the law of a state to which a vessel belonged,
in other words, the law of the domicil or flag, gives a right of action for
wrongful death if such death occurred on the high seas on board of the vessel,
the right of action given by the law of the domicil or fiag will be enforced in
an admiralty court of the United States as a claim against the fund arising in
a proceeding to limit liability.'^'*

Collision Cases. — The personal representatives of a passenger and of mem-
bers of a crew who were drowned as the result of the collision of their vessel
with another vessel on the high seas may recover in full in proceedings for the
limitation of liability of such other vessel a liability created by the statutes of
the state of the vessel's domicile, in favor of the personal representatives of a
person whose death is caused by violence or negligence.'^'^ The main objection
is that the statute allows a recovery beyond the maintenance and support which
is the limit of a seaman's rights against his own vessel when injured by the



71. Interest on amount salvaged from
appending ship. — The Scotland, 118 U. S.
507, 30 L. Ed. 15?,, 6 S. Ct. 1174.

72. Costs and interest in nature of dam-
ages occasioned by appeal. — The Wanata,
96 U. S. 600, 24 L. Ed. 461, citing Pro-
peller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How.
7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

73. Personal injuries and death by
wrongful act. — Richardson v. Harmon,
222 U. S. 96, 56 L. Ed. 110, 32 S. Ct. 27,
following Butler v. Boston, etc.. Steam-
ship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017,
9 S. Ct. 612; The Albert Dumois, 177 U.
S. 240, 44 L. Ed. 751, 20 S. Ct. 595, fol-
lowing Butler V. Boston, etc.. Steamship
Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S.
Ct. 612, and distinguishing The North
Star, 106 U. S. 17, 27 L. Ed. 91, 1 S. Ct.
41, and The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540,
43 L. Ed. 801, 19 S. Ct. 491; Craig v.
Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35 L.
Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97. So held as to
§ 4783, Rev. Stat.

74. Conflict of laws. — La Bourgogne,
210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664;
The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. Ed.
264, 28 S. Ct. 133.

75. Collision clause. — Judgment, The
Hamilton, 146 Fed. 724, 77 C. C. A. 150,
affirmed in 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. Ed. 264,
28 S. Ct. 133.

Law of Delaware. — The liability created
by Act Del. Jan. 26, 1886, as amended by
Act March 9, 1901, in favor of personal
representatives of a person whose death
is caused by violence or negligence, will



be enforced in a proceeding in admiralty
for the limitation of liability arising out
of a tortious collision on the high seas
of vessels belonging to Delaware corpo-
rations. Judgment, The Hamilton, 146'
Fed. 724, 77 C. C. A. 150, affirmed in 207
U. S. 398, 52 L. Ed. 264, 28 S. Ct. 133.

Law of France. — Under the general
law that the territorial sovereignty of a
state extends to a vessel of such state
when it is upon the high seas, the law of
France, which authorizes a recovery for
loss of life against a vessel in fault there-
for, governs in proceedings by the owner
of a French vessel in the courts of the
United States for limitation of liability
for claims arising out of the sinking of
such vessel in collision on a voyage across
the Atlantic, and claims for loss of life
resulting from the collision may be
proved against the fund paid in if the ves-
sel is held in fault. Decree 117 Fed. 261,
reversed in La Bourgogne, 139 Fed. 433,
71 C. C. A. 489.

The law of France, which authorizes a
recovery for loss of life against a vessel
in fault, will be enforced by the courts of
the United States in a proceeding to limit
liability for claims against a French ves-
sel found to be at fault for a collision in
a fog on the high seas, although the
French courts, in applying to the facts
found the international rule as to the
speed of vessels in a fog, might not have
held such vessel to be at fault. La Bour-
gogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S.
Ct. 664.



4043 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4504-4506

negligence of the master or a fellow servant on his ship. But the. question
here regards the liability of another vessel. The contract between the seaman
and the owners of the vessel does not affect the case.'''*' Neither does the Har-
ter Act, even if its terms could be extended to personal injuries and loss of
life."'^ Neither does the negligence of the seaman's vessel.'^^ This is the rule,
although both vessels in collision are in fault.""^ The recovery may be had
under the Limited Liability Act, although the local law gave no lien or privilege
therefor upon the vessel itself. ^"^

Part Owner's Proportion.— Act June 26, 1884, c. 121, § 18, 23 Stat. 57
(U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2945), which provides that "the individual liability
of a shipowner shall be limited to the proportion of any or all debts and lia-
bilities that his individual shares of the vessel bears to the whole," is appli-
cable to cases of personal injury; and the proportion of a part owner's liabil-
ity for damages in case of a personal injury, if the injury occur without the
privity or knowledge of any of the owners, is the proportion which his in-
terest in the vessel bears to all the interests therein, and not more.^^

_§ 4505. Salvage Claim.— Under the Act of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat, at L.
S7, ch. 121, U. S. Comp. Stat., 1901, p. 2945), a salvage claim is one to which
the Limited Liability Act applies, even if such claim was not included within
the meaning of § 4283, Rev. Stat.'^^

§§ 4506-4514. Condition Precedent to Right to Limit Liability —
§ 4506. Seaworthiness and Sufficiency of Equipment. — The owners of a
vessel are not entitled under § 4283, U. S. Comp. St., 1904, p. 2943, to a limi-
tation of liability, if they fail to provide a seaworthy vessel at the inception of
the voyage. ^^

Sufficiency and Competency of Crew. — It is the duty of the owners of a
ship carrying goods and passengers, not only to provide a seaworthy vessel,
but also provide their vessel with a crew adequate in number and competent
for their duty with reference to all the exigencies of the intended route ; not
merely competent for the ordinary duties of an uneventful voyage, but for any
exigency that is likely to happen, such, for example, as the striking of the ship
on a reef of rocks, and the consequent imperative necessity for instant action
to save the lives of the passengers and crew.^"* Under Rev. St., § 4463 [U. S.
Comp. St., 1901, p. 3045], which recjuires every steam vessel carrying pas-
sengers to have in her service a full complement of licensed officers and full
crew sufficient at all times to manage the vessel, as well as by the general mari-
time law, the crew must not only be sufficient in numbers, but competent for

76. The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. personal representatives of the passen-
Ed. 264, 28 S. Ct. 13.3, distinguishing The gers and crew of both vessels who died
Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 47 L. Ed. 760, 23 as the result of the collision. The Ham-
S. Ct. 483, and affirming Erie R. Co. v. ilton, 146 Fed. 724, 77 C. C. A. 150.
Erie, etc., Transp. Co., 204 U. S. 220, 51 gO. The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240,
L. Ed. 450, 27 S. Ct. 246. 44 L. Ed. 751, 20 vS. Ct. 595; Jakobsen v.

77. The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540, Springer, 87 Fed. 948. 31 C. C. A. 315.

43 L. Ed. 801, 19 S. Ct. 491; The Hamil- 81. Part owner's preparation.— Cook v.

ton, 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. Ed. 264_. 28 S. Smith, 187 Fed. 538, 109 C. C. A. 304, af-
Ct. 133. See post, "Personal Injuries and firming decree 164 Fed 628

^.l^Vv^ Y.i°"^o^* f^^^k \^Tt\ T P 1 82. Salvage claim.-The San Pedro, 223

«r. t'' tf 'u ^on?- T? 'c? .^« ^9 U. S. 365, 5<; T. Ed. 473, 32 S. Ct. 275,

L kd 264 "rS Ct n3 Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1221.

79. Both' vessels in fault.— Where two 83. Seaworthiness and sufficiency of

vessels belonging to different owners equipment— In re Pacific Mail Steamship

came into collision as tlie result of fault <■'"•• '•■^> ^'cd. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L.

on the part of I)oth, and both owners ^^- ^^- ^'■

brought proceedings in admiralty tf) limit 84. Sufficiency and competency of crew,

their liability, a claim for damages was — -In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 130

maintainable against botli vessels by the Fed. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L. R. A. 71.



§ 4506 CARRiijRs. 4044

all the duties they may be called on to perform in any exigency that is likely to
happen, and unless such a crew is supplied the owners are not entitled, under
§ 4493 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3058], to a limitation of liability under § 4283
[U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2943] for damages to persons and baggage growing
out of the loss of the vessel. ^^ The owners are liable for furnishing an inade-
quate crew which they shipped large enough in numbers but sick with fever.^*'
Where the owners appointed an imcompetent superintendent to manage ships
in Alaskan waters, they were not entitled to a limitation of liability for loss
arising from sending out a barge in windy and stormy weather.^''' A ship is
insufficiently manned where, although there is a sufficient number of sailors,
they are unable to understand and execute the orders because of their inability
to understand the language in which the orders of the officers in command
have to be given. ^^

Lifeboats, Rafts and Disengaging- Apparatus. — The question whether
vessels not fully equipped with the lifeboats, life rafts, and disengaging ap-
paratus required by the laws of the United States should be accorded the lim-
itation of liability has not been passed upon by the supreme court, ^'^ but the
district court for the southern district of New York has held that the owner of
a steamship is not debarred from maintaining proceedings for limitation of
liability on account of claims arising from her loss at sea on the ground that she
was at the time violating Rev. St., § 4488 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3055], re-
quiring all steamers to be provided with such number of lifeboats, etc., as
will best secure the safety of all persons on board in case of disaster, where,
although she did not have sufficient boats to carry all persons on board, she
had complied with all of the requirements of the board of inspectors, and re-
ceived their certificate to that effect, and carried such number of boats as the
inspectors determined would best secure the safety of all persons on board,
hecause a greater number would interfere with her management, and create an
additional danger. ^^

Sufficiency of Supply of Life Preservers. — The failure of a sailing vessel
to carry a sufficient supply of life preservers for her passengers, which is not
required by act of congress nor by custom, can not be charged as a fault against
the owners, who intrusted her equipment entirely to a competent master, which
will deprive such owners of the right to the limitation of liability provided by
Rev. St., § 4283.91

Defective Equipment Due to Neglect of Authorized Agent to Provide
Same. — See post, "Want of Privity or Knowledge of Owner of Negligence or
Defect," § 4507.

85. In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., were Chinese, and only two were able to
130 Fed. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L. R. understand the language spoken by the
A. 71. ofiicers, who were white men, and they

86. The Gentleman, Fed. Cas. No. 5,324. had never been drilled in launching the
Olc. 110. lifeboats. Held, that the vessel was not

c,„-D„ -c • T^ 0-I1-I inanned by an efficient and competent

87. Parsons v. Empire Transp. Co., Ill , -^ •, ..i j ^ c ^u

■n*^^ or^o ^fi r> r> A ono crew, such as it was the duty of the own-
red. 202, 49 C L. A. 302. , •, .\ . .i. ■ cc ■ c

, . _, ers to provide, that the insufficiency or

88. In re Pacific Mail Steamship Co., the crew was the paramount cause of the
130 Fed. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L. R. damages to persons and baggage, and that
■^- '^^- such owners were not entitled to a limita-

The passenger steamer City of Rio de tion of liability for damages to persons

Janeiro on her return voyage from Hong- and baggage arising from the sinking of

kong and intermediate ports struck on a the vessel. In re Pacific Mail Steamship

sunken rock outside San Francisco in a Co., 130 Fed. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L.

fog and darkness, and sank in 20 minutes R. A. 71.

thereafter, carrying down a large number 89. Lifeboats, rafts and disengagfing
of her passengers and crew. She carried apparatus. — La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95,
eleven lifeboats, all of which should have 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. "Ct. 664.
been launched in five minutes, but only 90. La Bourgogne, 117 Fed. 261, re-
three were launched at all, and two of those versed 139 Fed. 433, 71 C. C. A. 489.
were swamped by improper handling. 91. Sufficiency of supply of life preserv-
The crew were sufficient in number, but ers. — The Jane Grey, 99 Fed. 582.



4045



LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY.



§ 4507



§ 4507. Want of Privity or Knowledge of Owner of Neglig-ence or
Defect. — Mere negligence of itself does not necessarily establish the existence
on the part of the owner of a vessel of "privity or knowledge," within the
meaning of Rev. St., U. S., § 4283 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2943), according
to shipowners a limited exemption from liability.^-

The knowledge or privity of the managing officer or agent of a corpo-
ration is the knowledge or privity of the corporation within the meaning of
Rev. Stat., § 4283 (U. S. Comp. St.. 1901, p. 2943), providing for the limita-
tion of liability of shipowners for losses caused without their privity or knowl-
€dge.^^



92. Want of privity or knowledge of
owner of negligence or defect. — La Bour-
gogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S.
Ct. 664, affirming 144 Fed. 781, 75 C. C.
A. 647, following Providence, etc., Steam-
ship Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578,
■21 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617.

In determining the Providence, etc.,
Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S.
578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617, it
became necessary to decide whether, if
there was negligence of the owner of a
vessel in case of fire, within the meaning
of the 1st section of the Act of 1851, such
negligence was the necessary equivalent
of privity and knowledge of the owner,
as expressed in the 3d section of the act.
It was held that the two provisions were
not necessarily coterminous, that negli-
gence under the 1st section of the act
might exist so as to prevent the unquali-
fied limitation given by that section, and
yet the owner of the vessel be entitled to
the more limited exemption given by the
3d section, which depended upon the ab-
sence of privity or knowledge. In other
words, it was decided that although a
loss might have happened by the negli-
gence of the owner of the vessel, such
loss might yet not have been occasioned
with the knowledge or privity of such
owner. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52
L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664.

"Nothing to the contrary is properly
to be deduced from the case of The
Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 38 L.
Ed. 381, 14 S. Ct. 486, * * * for that
case did not purport in the slightest de-
gree to overrule or qualify the previous
decisions, and was concerned, not with
the meaning of the words 'privity and
knowledge,' j)ut with tlie rule to he applied
in determining what constituted pending
freight within the meaning of the law for
the limitation of liability." La Bour-
gogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S.
Ct. 664.

"It _ may be that there are general ex-
pressions found in some cases in the
lower federal courts, decided both be-
fore and after the Hill Case, which lend
color to the assumption that privity and
knowledge, as defined in the statute, is
but the equivalent of mere negligence.
Such of the cases relied upon, however,
as were decided before tiie authoritative



interpretation of the statute in the Hill
Case, were necessarily overruled by that
decision, and so far as those decided since
may be inconsistent with the previous
rulings of the court, they are clearly not
entitled to weight." La Bourgogne, 210
U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973. 28 S. Ct. 664.

93. Knowledge or privity of manager of
corporation. — In re Jeremiah Smith &
Sons, 113 C. C. A. 391, 193 Fed. 395; The
Republic, 61 Fed. 109, 9 C. C. A. 386;
Parsons v. Empire Transp. Co., Ill Fed.
202, 49 C. C. A. 302; Weisshaar v. Kim-
ball Steamship Co., 128 Fed. 397, 63 C. C.
A. 139, 65 L. R. A. 84; Craig v. Continen-
tal Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 12 S. Ct. 97,
35 L. Ed. 886.

When the owner is a corporation, the
privity or knowledge must be that of the
managing officers of the corporation.
Craig V. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S.
638, 35 L. Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97.

A company running a line of oyster
boats held not entitled to a limitation of
liability for the consequences of an ex-
plosion caused by negligence in the fill-
ing of gasolene tanks where the work was
done under the superintendence of the
managing agent of the line at one of its
terminal ports. In re Jeremiah Smith &
Sons, 193 Fed. 395, 113 C. C. A. 391.

A corporation engaged in the transpor-
tation of cargo and passengers between
Seattle and Alaskan points maintained a
line of steamers to St. Michael, which was
the Alaskan headquarters of its fleet, and
there transshipped to other steamers and
barges, which were run by the company
between that port and Dawson and other
points on the Yukon river. Its general
manager was located at San Francisco,
and he sent a superintendent to take
charge of all the company's business at
St. Michael. Such superintendent being
compelled to return, by reason of illness,
in July, left in charge his assistant, who
was incompetent for the position by rea-
son of his inexperience in such matters,
which was known to the general manager,
l)ut who was permitted to remain in
charge during the remainder of the sea-
son. About October 1st he contracted on
iK'half of the company to take a cargo
to Nome, and loaded the same on a river
barge, which was wholly unfit for such a
voyage at that season, and which sank



§ 4507



CARRIERS.



4046



"Privity or Knowledge" of Officers and Crew. — The words "privity or
knowledge" in § 4283, Rev. Stat., does not extend to the officers and crews of
vessels, as representing the owners, but the privity or knowledge must be that
of the owners themselves.-'^ Thus an owner who, after a general inspection,
purchases a vessel from a shipbuilder of recognized standing and reputation,
who equips her with machinery, means, and appliances which are suitable and
sufficient, if properly used, may limit his liability for injuries occasioned by the
negligent use of such appliances by his employees. ^■'*

Promulgation of Regulations as to Speed. — The duty on the part of a
steamship company seeking limitation of liability for claims arising out of a
collision in a fog, to have made regulations directing that its steamers be not
run at an immoderate rate of speed in a fog, in order to negative privity or
knowledge of fault, was sufficiently discharged by promulgating regulations
which, in terms, reiterated the international rule, and called for compliance
with its provisions. '^'^

Duty of Inspection Delegated to Skilled Marine Engineer.— Where a
corporation owning a steam vessel had delegated to a competent and skilled
marine engineer the duty of inspecting the boiler on such vessel, and supervis-
ing the repair thereof, it was entitled, under Rev. St., §§ 4283-4289, to limit
its liability for damage resulting from an explosion of the boiler through a de-
fect not apparent to an unskilled person, although there had been negligence
on the part of some of its employees in the inspection or repair of the boiler.''"^



in a storm before having started, through
the additional negligence of the agent in
not having it taken to a safe place. Held
that, whether such agent in fact had au-
thority to accept such cargo, he held os-
tensible authority, and the company was
bound by his action, and, responsible for
his negligence and incompetence, and was
not entitled to a limitation of liability
for the loss under Rev. St., §§ 4283-4285
[U. S. Comp. St., 1901. pp. 2943, 2944],
which were not intended to relieve ship-
owners from personal liability for their
own willful or negligent acts. Parsons v.
Empire Transp. Co., Ill Fed. 202, 49 C.
C. A. 302.

Defect in equipment which had existed
for five years. — A corporation owner of
a vessel held not entitled to a limitation
of liability against a claim for the death
of an employee resulting from defective
equipment of the vessel, which defect had
existed for five years. In re Ross, 204
Fed. 248, 122 C. C. A. 516, reversing de-
cree, 19() Fed. 921,

Obvious defects — No inspection — Use
under personal direction of president. —
Where a judgment was recovered for the
death of a person on a derrick scow by
the breaking of a part of the derrick, the
court finding that the part was obviously
defective, but that no inspection was
made, that the derrick was being used
under the personal direction of defend-
ant's president, defendant is not entitled
to limitation of liability against such
judgment on the ground that the injury
Vv^as without its privity or knowledge,
through the fault or negligence of the
master of the scow. The Capt. Jack, 169
Fed. 455.



Acquiescence of president of company
in overloading boat. — Where the presi-
dent of a steamship company was present
in a small boat sent ashore by one of the
company's ships, and acquiesced in the
action of the officer in charge in negli-
gently permitting the boat to be over-
loaded, in consequence of which it was
swamped, and a number of the passen-
gers were drowned, such negligence of
the officer was with "the privity or
knowledge" of the company, which is not
entitled to a limitation of its liability for
claims arising out of the disaster, under
Rev. St., §§ 4283-4285 [U. S. Comp. St.,
1901, p. 2944]. Judgment, In re Kimball
Steamship Co., 123 Fed. 838, reversed in
Weisshaar v. Kimball Steamship Co., 128
Fed. 397, 63 C. C. A. 139, 65 L. R. A. 84.

94. "Privity or knowledge" of officers
and crew. — Craig v. Continental Ins. Co.,
141 U. S. 638, 35 L. Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97.

The master of a tug, through whose
negligent towage a tow was stranded,
held not incompetent in such sense that
his employment charged the owner with
privity, which deprived it of the right to
a limitation of liability. The Murrell, 200
Fed. 826, decree affirmed in Baltimore,
etc.. Barge Co. v. Eastern Coal Co., 195
Fed. 483, 115 C. C. A. 393.

95. Inspection on purchase from builder,
— Decree, In re Excelsior Coal Co., 130
Fed. 271, affirmed in 142 Fed. 724, 74 C.
C. A. 56.

96. Promulgation of regulations as to
speed. — Judgment La Bourgogne, 144 Fed.
781, 75 C. C. A. 647, affirmed' in 210 U. S.
95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664.

97. Duty of inspection delegated to
skilled marine engineer. — The Annie



4047 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4507-4508

Failure of Agent to Inspect or Provide Suitable Machinery. — A ship-
owner, who has provided a suitable person as his agent to inspect or provide
for the proper equipment of the vessel, is not deprived of the benefit of the
statute limiting- liability by proof of negligence of such agent in failing to pro-
vide such equipment or to maintain it in good condition of which the owner
had no knowledge or notice. The owner of a fleet of barges employed in the



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 175 of 214)