Maritime History of the Great Lakes

Marine Review (Cleveland, OH), June 1916, p. 206

The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

¢ De te A HE EVENTS leading up to the European war are set out in the case KRoNPRINZESSIN CECILIE, 228 Federal Reporter 946, in an agreed statement of facts. That case was one seeking damages for breach of contract, by a steamship, for failure to carry a consignment of gold from the port of New York to the port of Plymouth, England. It appears that on July 28, 1914, the German steamship sailed from New York for Bremerhaven, Germany, via) Plymouth, and that on the evening of July 31, when about 1,000 miles from Plymouth, it changed its course and re- turned to an American port. The mas- ter had knowledge of the historical facts =] preceding the outbreak of the war oc-» curring before the sailing of the steamer and of facts thereafter occurring, indi- cating that his country was upon the verge of war with Russia, France and England, and just before changing his course received a wireless from the steamship company stating that war had broken out and directing him to return to New York. It appeared, however, that war had not in fact been declared at that time. The District Court, for the district of Massachusetts, held that the master was justified, and acted with a due regard for the safety of his ship’s passengers and cargo and that his de- viation from the direct course of his voyage was not a breach of contract with a shipper, though it was claimed that the steamship could have reached Plymouth before war was declared. The court further held that, as the mas- ter acted in accordance with the dic- tates of his own prudence and sagacity, the fact that what he did was with the approval of the shipowner did not prejudice him or the ship. So far as shippers and passengers are concerned, the master was bound to act upon his own judgment, to be exercised in good faith on their behalf, in determining whether to abandon a voyage because of information that war was imminent, and instructions from the shipowners would not protect him. * * * In the absence of a showing that it is customary for a ship lying at an- chor to maintain her engines and_ boil- ers in condition for immediate move- ment, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that failure so to do is negligence. —Charles Hubbard, 228 Federal Re- porter 352. Riek * In Cuzco, 225 Federal Reporter 169, the court said: “Ships are regarded as floating portions of the nation to which they belong, and whose flag they fly, and while they are upon the high seas. the jurisdiction of the flag obtains, and the law and rule of decision of the flag’s jurisdiction obtain, and all on By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law board are regarded as being on the soil of the vessel’s nation, and a tort com- mitted on the high seas is therefore amenable to the law of the ship’s flag.” The court further held that torts com- mitted on a vessel in the port or harbor of another country is governed, as to the rights of the person injured, exclusively by the law of such country, so that a stevedore, injured through the fault of those in charge of a vessel in a port of British Columbia, the laws of which country do not give a lien for such injury, cannot maintain a suit in rem against the vessel therefore in a court of admiralty of the United States. * * * A contractor engaged in widening and deepening a section of the Erie canal, it was decided in Otts vs. I. M. Luding- ton’s Sons, Inc., 229 Federal Reporter 454, is bound in the exercise of reason- ~ able care to ascertain from time to time, by dragging or some other suit- able means, the depth of water in the canal and the condition of its prism in the locality where he is engaged, in or- der to avoid interference with naviga- tion. The duty of keeping the canal free from obstruction, or of adequately warning navigators of the danger there- from, it was said, rested upon the prin- cipal contractor, as well as upon the subcontractor, by whose negligence an obstacle to navigation was actually cre- ated. ee see The Greek vessel, ATHANASIOS, was chartered by a Canadian corporation in a port of the United States to carry grain to.a European port, under a char- ter party exempting from liability for ‘loss or damage occasioned by arrest and restraint of princes, rulers, or peo- ple.” While the vessel was at New “York and before loading, she was requi- sitioned by the Greek government under orders received from the Greek legation at Washington. The court decided, in an opinion appearing in 228 Federal Reporter 558, that such requisition re- leased the vessel from the obligations of her charter. -The court further de- cided that a court of admiralty of the United States should for political reas- ons refuse to entertain a suit by the Canadian corporation against the Greek vessel. Pe ae The steamer E. M. Peck, it appeared in the case reported in 228 Federal Re- porter 481, was moored for the winter of 1903-4 in the Black river at Lorain, O., in charge of an experienced mariner. She was made fast by anchor chains at bow and stern, the bow chains being carried upstream to a sound white oak pile 15 inches in diameter set in solid ground, and then shackled. In January a thaw, with rain, set in, causing the 206 = —— T_T OOO S Legal Tips For Ship Owners and -Ofh Specially Compiled for The Marine Review UGC CNN ice to break up, and creating conditions very unusual, if not unprecedented. The harbormaster and the caretaker ran five additional lines from the steamer, but an ice gorge, breaking through a bridge, came down, parted the lines, breaking off the pile to which the bow chain was made fast, and the steamer was swept against a dredge moored below. The court held that those in charge did all that careful, prudent, and experienced men would have done under like condi- tions, and that the drifting of the steamer was due to inevitable accident, for which no suit could be maintained. * * * The anchor of a ship was held in the case of ANGLO-PATAGONIAN, 228 Federal Reporter 1014, to be a part of her ap- pliances and under her control, where it appeared that a dry-dock company which was making repairs to the ship had nothing to do with her except to make such repairs, and the ship was, therefore, declared liable for injuries to dry-dock employes, caused by the falling of such anchor because of inse- cure fastening or imperfections in con- nection with its construction. This was so, the court held, whether the slipping of the anchor was due to weight upon the break band holding it, or to vibra- tion or jar caused by the work of re-. pairs, or to its actual loosening by some person. The court decided in that case that a riveter 40 years old, married, and having six children, and who had been making from $20 to $25 a week, who suffered a dislocation of his right shoul- der, a fracture of the upper part of his arm, a broken ankle, and a partial paralysis of the right arm, was entitled to an allowance of $7,000, that a colored foreman rigger, married, and having two children, whose leg was crushed so as to require amputation, and whose average weekly pay was from $18 to $25, was entitled to an award of $5,500; that an employe in the fitter’s depart- ment of the ship yard, married, and having one child, and earning $12 a week, and who sustained a fracture of the left thigh and other bruises, was entitled to an allowance of $4,000; that the mother of a colored laborer who died from injuries sustained, was en- titled to an award of $2,000, it appear- ing that such laborer was 25 years old and earned about $12.75 a week, and that the mother was 55 years old. * * * Under the United States Compiled Statutes 1913, section 8021, it was said in the case of Atota, 228 Federal Re- porter 1006, the owner of a motor boat, properly manned and equipped, is enti- tled to a limitation of liability on ac- count of a collision which occurred with a small rowboat without his privity or knowledge.

Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit
Privacy Policy