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 AMAGES to a vessel resulting from collision should be assessed on the basis of compensation, said the court in the case of F. J. LUCKENBACH, 42 F. (2d) 279, or, as otherwise ex- pressed, that the injured party should be restored in a financial sense to the position in which he would have been had the injury not been suffered. It was also said that there is another principle of law common to the law maritime and common law. This is that the injured party may not exag- gerate or inflame his damages, but, on the contrary, must do_ everything which may be reasonably expected of him to minimize his damages. Dam- ages are assessed broadly and in the aggregate at the sum sufficient to re- store to the injured party what he has lost. In reaching this sum of damages there are, of course, elements to be considered, but it is a wrong view to look upon and award damages for these elements as items in the sense of an item in a book account of goods sold and delivered. When a vessel is damaged through a collision or other- wise, either of two courses may be fol- lowed. If the damage is so extensive that, as the expression goes, the ves- sel is not worth repairing, she may be abandoned as a total loss, and the damage is then the fair value of the vessel immediately before the colli- sion in which she was damaged. If, however, she may be repaired and thus restored to the condition in which she was, then the damage becomes the cost of repairs, less, in some in- stances, the difference betwen her re- pair value and her former value. — N DETERMINING whether a repair- man is entitled to a maritime lien for making repairs to a vessel, it is the intent expressed in the instru- ment which controls.—PRESIDENT AR- THUR, 42 F. (2d) 288. xk *e HE basic principle governing salv- age awards is that such an award should be made as will encourage others in similar circumstances to save property exposed to the perils peculiarly incident to the sea. But at the same time the award should be fair to the owners and not be made so large as to impose an undue hardship upon them. While the amount of a salvage award is largely a matter of judicial discretion, as was said in the case of SCHREVEPORT, 42 F. (2d) 524, still there are certain general prin- ciples which are well recognized. They have been stated by the Su- preme Court of the United States as follows: “Courts of admiralty usually consider the following circumstances as the main ingredients in determin- 44 ing the amount of the reward to be decreed for a salvage service: (1.) The labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service. (2.) The promptitude, skill, and energy dis- played in rendering the service and saving the property. (3.) The value of the property employed by the sal- vors in rendering the service, and the danger to which such property was ex- posed. (4.) The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril. (5.) The value of the property saved. (6) The degree of danger from which the property was rescued.” It is also proper to con- sider the degree of success achieved and the proportion of value lost and saved. T HE necessity of a tug captain keep- ing his tow in line is constantly re- peated in the cases. This is a wise and necessary precaution especially in a busy thoroughfare like the east river. It means that a tow is held to a degree of care commensurate with - the risk, or, as some authorities seem to hold, to a high degree of care, or extreme care to avoid danger of colli- sion. While the decisions will usually be found to apply to long hawsers, with tows having naturally a wide swing if carelessly handled, and the absence of a helper tug where due care required the presence of such vessels, yet the length of a hawser has not been the test.—Bortsco, 42 F. (2d) 549. se bt HERE the owner in good faith ! appoints a competent agent to equip, Man, or maintain a vessel or her machinery, any acts of ommission or commission of the agent, not parti- cipated in personally by the owner, do not constitute “privity or knowl- edge” within the meaning of the limit- ation of liability statute.—PonTIn Broruers, 42 F. (2d) 556. 3 7 bg HE law is well settled, it was de- clared in the case of Ford v. Kline, 42 F. (2d) 556, that the coast guard may, upon probable cause, stop any vessel upon the high seas without re- ference to coast line distance, when sailing under the American flag, and search and seize the same upon dis- covery of its being loaded with contra- band liquor. tk *& TT courts look with favor upon Salvage. It is in the nature of a re- ward for meritorious services rend- ered I laborious and perilous enter- prises. Where a vessel is in distress, in peril and danger, or where the sea is rough, and the weather unfavorable and the wind high, or where other MARINE REVIEW—J une, 1931 facts which usually attend a vessel in distress exist, there is always a risk and danger in rendering assistance. It is easier for another vessel to stay out of the way or to pass by and not at- tempt to render assistance than it is to undertake the risk of doing so and incur a risk of injury to itself and a possible loss of life and cargo in con- nection with the effort. It has there- fore been the policy of the courts, in order to encourage salvaging and the saving of life and property at sea, to be liberal in the matter of salvage where the vessel has made an honest effort to be of assistance or has joined with others in doing so, whether its efforts resulted in the final saving of the vessel or not, provided the failure of final success was not due to any lack of honest effort and willing pur- pose to assist.—Atlantic Transport Co. v. United States, 42 F. (2d) 583. HE blowing of a signal is not an excuse for not being careful after giving it—-Cometr No. 5, 42 F. (2d) 654. T IS the duty of the tug to observe and properly protect boats in the tail end of her tow as well as boats in the forward end and to urge proper cau- tion to see that those in the tail end are not injured or endanger others. Naturally, the longer the tow and the more unwieldly, the greater is the care required.—Marion J. 42 F. (2d) 657. HEN a person who furnishes services or supplies to a vessel knows that the vessel is under charter and does not proceed to ascertain the terms of the charter or the authority of the person with whom he contracts to represent the vessel, the furnisher of the services has no redress against the vessel, unless the charter grants to the charterer authority to impose a lien, but must look. to the person who ordered them.—Bren Lawers, 42 F. (2d) 897. inn te si % HE authorities are ample, according the case of Trent v. Gulf Pacific lines, 42 F. (2d) 903, to the effect that by the articles the ship is bound to the men, just as the men are bound to the ship, and that it is not for any lit- tle infraction of discipline that a dis- charge may be effected. In the in- stant case it was held that where the ship’s cook was wrongfully dis- charged, but his wages were tendered at the time and refused, he could not recover double wages, but he could recover only wages earned and one month’s additional wages as compen- sation for his wrongful discharge. : : 7