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 TEAMSHIP company, and not con- i struction company engaged in re- pairs, was held in the case of Drowne v. Great Lakes Transit Corporation, 1 F.(2d) 339, to be required to pro- vide suitable guard for manhole on ship, and liable for death of employee of construction company falling into manhole. * * SHIP owner is bound to send his ship to the loading port, even if it is obvious that she cannot arrive there before the cancellation date, and the charterer cannot be compelled to say how he will exer- cise his option until that. date ar- rives. * * * If the vessel does not proceed to the loading port, that fact will make no difference to the char- terer, if he exercises his option to cancel; if, on the contrary, he ex- ercises his option to load, he will have a right of action for damages against the ship owner for breach of the obligation to carry.” Sanday v. United States Shipping Board Emer- gency Fleet Corp., 1 F (2d) 390. HILE vessels, automobiles, en- gines, and trains of cars must at times be backed, as well as pro- pelled forward, it is universally con- ceded,” it was stated in the case of Guascow Maru, 1 F.(2d) 503 “that backing is a dangerous maneuver, and requires the utmost skill, especially in a narrow channel. Vessels should not back out of a slip until all pre- cautions have been taken.” ILLS of lading, it was decided in the case of Eastern Steamship Company v. 170,040 50/60 bushels of wheat, 1 F.(2d) 558, are negotiable instruments and import title of the specified commodity and a right to transfer or assign the same from one to another, and the vessel, for viola- tion of conditions binding upon her, is liable for injury sustained. Ordi- narily, the court said, she may as- sume the property transported by her will be accepted by the care party on arrival, pursuant to arrangements between the latter or the owner or shipowner, and generally that unload- ing will occur without unusual delay or detention unless extraordinary con- ditions intervene. * * * MARITIME lien, being secret and unrecorded, is stricti juris, and cannot be extended by judicial con- struction, analogy, or inference. Such liens, said the court in the case of EURANA, 1 F.(2d) 684, are an excep- tion to the rule that all creditors have equal rights in the property of their debtor. They rest upon an entirely different principle. The maritime lien had its origin in the desire to protect the ship and the mechanic’s lien in the desire to protect mechanics and materialmen. Maritime liens, there- fore, cannot be conferred on the theory of unjust enrichment or subrogation. HERE the government sold ves- ‘sels for a_ stated price, and consumable stores therein were sep- arately appraised and paid for on delivery, on retaking the ships under contract for default in payment, it cannot claim that vessels included such stores then on board, but they are the property of the purchaser.— United States v. Miller, 2 F. (2d) 248. oe F HE master of the privileged of two meeting vessels will not be held in fault for maintaining her course and speed, it was decided in the case of Newport, 2 F. (2d) 255, so long as it is possible for the other to avoid her, or until he has some distinct indication that the other vessel is about to fail in her duty. The court further held that the privi- leged of two steamships meeting at sea on a clear day was not chargeable with contributory fault for a colli- sion between them, brought about by the gross negligence and fault of the other vessel, which had no one in the pilot house, on the bridge, or on lookout, because her master kept his course and speed, though his signals were not answered and he could see no one on duty on the other vessel. * N AN action at law for injury un- der section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act, the seaman bears a dif- ferent relation to the ship than does the cargo, or a passenger, or a stran- ger, and his rights rest on a dif- ferent basis; in an action by a sea- man under such section, the issues must be determined according to the principles of common law, and are the injury, the proximate cause thereof, and the measure of compensation, and allegations in the complaint of acts of negligence of defendant, unless such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, are immaterial. —Lorang v. Alaska Steamship Com- pany, 2 F. (2d) 300. ( HE statutory requirement of “reasonable diligence” on the part of one furnishing parts or supplies to a vessel to ascertain the authority of the person in possession to bind the vessel is not met by reliance on the mere statement of such person that he is the owner.—MorGANZA, 1 F.(2d) 964. * * * @ primary object of section 2 of the Seamen’s Act of March 4, 1915, requiring seamen to be divided into watches, it was decided in O’Hara 61 v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, 1 F.(2d) 928, is to fix hours of service and prevent overwork, and a vessel having three quarter-masters divided into three watches of eight hours each, and three lookouts divided into three similar watches, the remainder of the crew doing ordinary shipwork for eight hours during the daytime and being off duty at night, did not violate the Act, and the quartermaster is not entitled to a discharge there- under because of such arrangement. * * * c-- WAS said in the case of Sivia, 2 F.(2d) 99, 102, that a captain sailing a ship up a thoroughfare such as the East River is naturally con- cerned more with the craft in the water than that moored along the bank, and yet, said the court, they must not be carelessly forgotten. “The speed in midstream may not be care- less,” using the words of the court, “although that speed near the shore would be careless. The East River does not exist solely for barges and lighters, important as they are, nor does it exist solely for the larger steamer. The rights of all must be respected, and each captain must use reasonable care in the management of his vessel not to do that which is reasonably certain to cause damage in the ordinary cause and effect and se- quence of events. The duty also rests on the smaller craft moored alongside of the bank, that they be moored in a reasonably safe way, and that they be maintained in such _ reasonably good condition as to withstand the ordinary knocks and _ emergencies which are so constantly to be en- countered, and which there is every reason to apprehend, and that those in charge be ordinarily experienced and competent.” * * * HE action of the engineer of a boat moored in East River, which had been injured by being bumped against a stone bulkhead and had begun to fill, casting her loose on a flood-tide half an hour after the in- jury, causing her to suffer further damage, is not excusable as an error of judgment in extremis, it was held in the case of SiiviA, 2 F.(2d) 99, 102, but was an act of negligence. “Tf under such circumstances a care- less act is excused on the ground that it was simply an error of judgment, in extremis,” said the court, “then every case of negligence could be ex- cused on this exceptional ground, and negligence would be proved as evi- dence of prudence. The law in regard to errors of judgment is based on dif- ferent circumstances from those here indicated.”