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

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law CARRIER of goods by water, like a carrier by land, is an in- surer and, although no actual blame is imputable to it, is absolutely liable, in the absence of a_ special contract or statute limiting its liabili- ty, for all damages sustained by the goods intrusted to its care, unless the damage is occasioned by the act of God, the public enemy, the public authority, the fault of the shipper, or the inherent nature of the thing shipped. The law however, recognized the right of the carrier to limit in many particulars its common-law lia- bility by special agreement or stipula- tions in the bill of lading. But in America it was established that a common carrier by sea could not so exempt itself from liability to the owner of cargo for damage arising from the negligence of the master or crew of the vessel.. To meet the ever increasing attempts further to limit the liability of the vessel and her owners by inserting in bills of lading stipulations against losses arising from unseaworthiness, bad stowage, negligence, and other causes of liability by which the common-law responsibility of carriers by sea was being frittered away the Harter act was passed. It was designed to fix the relations between the cargo and the vessel and to prohibit contracts restricting the liability of the vessel in certain particulars. — WILLDOMI- NO, 800 Federal Reporter 5. * %* * NDER section 38 of the Harter act, to entitle a shipowner to ex- emption from liability for losses to cargo through fault or error in man- agement of navigation of the vessel, he has the burden of proving that he exercised due dilligence to make the vessel seaworthy and _ properly manned, equipped, and supplied, with- ont regard to whether or not there was any casual connection between the lack of such diligence and the loss. Where the voyage on which a shipment is made is not continuous, but divided into stages, the require- ment of said section 3 that the owner must have exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy to entitle him to exemption from liability for loss or damage, applies at the beginning of each stage of the voyage.— WILLDOMINO, 800 Federal Reporter 5. UTUAL exception in a charter party of “act of God, restraint of princes, * * * and all and every other unavoidable -hindrances which may prevent the loading and deliv- ery,’ does not apply to a hindrance caused by occupation of berths by other ships ahead, it was held in the case of LAKE YELVERTON, 300 Federal Reporter 47; and where the provisions of the charter party for lay days and demurrage speak in terms of days in computing demurrage a fraction of a day is to be counted as a whole day. * * * OUBLE towage rate was _ ade- quate compensation for salvage services rendered by a tug to a strand- ed oil barge, which was in protected waters and not in much danger, and there was no danger to the _ tug. Barges in tow, which were anchored while the tug went out to the aid of the stranded vessel, which rendered no service and were not delayed be- cause of the salvage service, were not entitled to salvage award.—Hol- brook v. Freeport Sulphur Transporta- tion Co., 300 Federal Reporter 63. * * & HE equipment of vessels, wheth- er used in harbors or on the high seas, it was said in the case of HEADLIGHT, 300 Federal Reporter 84, is regulated either by tradition or statute, and in the absence of usage or statute requiring the master of a harbor tug to carry a barometer, the court cannot charge him with fault because of his failure to do so. The court also held that it is the duty of the master of a harbor tug to note and give weight to the warnings of the weather bureau as publicly displayed, but he is under no duty, nor is the operator of a number of tugs, to apply to the bureau for private opinions or unpublished information about the weather to come, * * HE ower of the pier and in ex- clusive control of the coaling of the boat, owed the duty of exercising that degree of care reasonable required to load the coal so that no damage woud ensue to the vessel. If it failed in this respect, and its failure was the proximate cause of the damage, it should be held liable. On the other hand, and equally, the owner of the vessel to be coaled owed the duty of furnishing a seaworthy vessel, so that in the operation of coaling, if done in the exercise of ordinary pru- dence, no damage would’ ensue.— BARRENFORK, 300 Federal Reporter 366. Bree NDER section 3 of the Harter act and a bill of lading exoner- ating a ship for damage to cargo due to assisting another vessel in distress, a salvor vessel is not liable to a cargo owner for damage caused by delay due to salvage service, and the salved vessel cannot be held liable to 36 the cargo owner on the salvor vessel for delay.—MENOMINEE, 3800 Federal Reporter 461. . HILE salvage includes many demands “in the nature of sal- vage,” a vessel in distress cannot be made to respond, either for strict sal- vage or services in the nature of salvage, unless it be proven that the person making the claim rendered services and that such services bene- fitted the vessel in trouble; as cargo on the salvor vessel did not aid the salved vessel, the cargo owner was not entitled to damages from the salved vessel for delay.—MENOMINEE, 800 Federal Reporter 464. ue * * N INJURED seaman assumes the risk of injury from any and all those dangers ordinarily and na- turally incident to the service, but not to the full extent of the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied to employees on land, because of the difference in conditions, his inability to. quit the service, and his subjec- tion to disciplinary and summary punishment for. disobedience of orders, it was said in the case of Grimberg v. Admiral Oriental Steamship Line, 500 Federal Reporter 619. A seaman does not assume the risk of injury resulting from unseaworthiness of the vessel, defective appliances, or a place to work not made reasonably safe, though he continues in the employ- ment with knowledge of the danger, nor from the negligence of an officer of the ship, or other member of the crew. It was also held that a watch- man, a member of the crew during the voyage, is a “seaman,” within section 33 of the merchant marine act. * * * I T WAS the duty of the charterer of a barge, as bailee, to have shifting tugs available to move the barge moored in an exposed position to a safe place, to prevent damage from a long-continued and increasing gale; where a charter party contains no covenant for return of the vessel in good order, there is no _ liability for injury to the vessel without negli- gence.—Empire Brick & Supply Co. v. Hines, 300 Federal Reporter 688. * * * N DETERMINING liability for damage to a tow, known wrecks. must be treated like known, but un- charted rocks, and a competent navi- gator is held to the duty of keeping his vessel and her tow from running into them, and the only excuse for failure is his major. — McWilliams Bros., Inc., v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 800 Federal Reporter 687.