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 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law Specially Compiled for Marine Review HE rule is that a vessel “sails” from the port when she has her cargo on board which she intends to carry, is in complete readiness for the voyage with stores and crew aboard. —Archibald McNeil & Sons Co., Inc., of New York, v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 42 F. (2d) 669. * Fk T IS well settled that a vessel which is maneuvering to enter an an- chorage ground or is maneuvering out from an anchorage ground is not on a definite course or a fixed speed, and she is therefore not a privileged vessel. The very foundation of the crossing rule is that the burdened vessel, by observing the continuous course and fixed speed of the priv- ileged vessel, knows absolutely where she will be and how she will be head- ing at any future moment.—ARFELD, 42°R (2d) “745. S TEVEDORES have a maritime lien upon the freights, enforceable in admiralty. The mere fact that the shipper entered into a contract with the receiver for the owners of the ship, compromising various claims and indebtedness, or agreed to a re- duction of the carrying charge, does not change or modify the lien of the longshoreman; and that lien is assert- able in a court of admiralty, and fol- lows the freight, and attaches to the proceeds and revenue that can be dis- tinctly traced, and adheres to the pro- ceeds in whose hands soever they may come.—Sourico, 42 F. (2d) 935. * * UBSEQUENT knowledge of how one might have avoided a disaster should not be taken as an unqualified test of whether there was a prior duty to avoid it. ‘Where, as here,” de- clared the court in the case of Am- BRIDGE, 42 F. (2d) 971, “the fault of one vessel is clearly established, the evidence of the other vessel’s fault must also be clear and convincing in order to make out a case for appor- tionment of damages.” * * * HERE a tug has brought her barge to the place designated and moored her safely, the tug’s task is completed.—New Jersey Shipbuild- ing & Dredging Co. v. Tracy Towing Line, 42 F. (2d) 1005. * * NDEPENDENT of statute, the fact that salvor and salved vessels be- longed to the same owner does not preclude the owner of the salving ves- sel from recovering salvage against the cargo of the salved vessel, provided the peril which rendered the service 24 necessary did not arise through any breach of the contract of carriage. And now it is provided by statute (Act Aug. 1, 1912, sec. 1), that the right to remu- neration for assistance or salvage serv- ices shall not be affected by common ownership of the vessels rendering and receiving such assistance or salvage services.—Southern Pacific Steamship Co. v. New Orleans Coal & Bisso Tow- boat. Co; 43.8. (20). 177. * * * HE words, “shipped in apparent good order and condition,” “to be delivered in like apparent good order and condition,” in bill of lading, im- port an admission that the goods when shipped were, so far as could be seen, in good order, and the goods so far as visible were not damaged. More than this the owners did not represent. The onus upon the ship owner is met by proof either that the damage did not arise during shipment, or that it was within the exceptions of the bill © of ladings.—VALLESCURA, 43 F. (2d) 247. es HE grounding of a vessel during a heavy fog was said, in the case of Kelly, Weber & Co. v. Franklin Fire Insurance Co., 43 F. (2d) 361, to con- stitute “peril of the sea’ within a policy of marine insurance covering damage to cargo. : ROR oe T IS well settled in admiralty law that when a tug grounds her tow on a well-known and charted shoal there is a presumption that the accident was due to the negligence of the tug. Tug- boats and their masters who assume the duty of towing must know tides ‘and currents and make proper allow- ance for them.—Coastwise Transporta- tion Corp. v. United States, 43 F (2d) 401. oe Y ARTICLE VI ef the rules of Ole- run, a sailor injured by his own wilful misconduct could not be cured at the expense of the ship, and might be discharged. Under the laws of Wisbuy, if injured on shore in the master’s or ship’s service, he was en- titled to maintenance and cure, and, no doubt, if injured while off duty aboard ship, the same rule applies. Under the modern French commercial code (article 262), and in the United States, a seaman is entitled to wages and medical treatment, if sick, during the voyage, or injured in the ship’s service. And the cure would extend a reasonable time beyond the voyage. For wilful misconduct a seaman is not entitled to maintenance and cure, and, if the wilful misconduct was not suffi- cient to warrant discharge, the ex- MARINE REVIEW—July, 1931 pense could be deducted from the earned wage during the voyage, and, if rightfully discharged, claim to wages for the voyage terminated, and, if not so discharged, deduction for wages dur- ing disability—Meyer v. Dollar Steam- ship line, 43 F. (2d) 425. * * * HE fact that a vessel is in charge of an unlicensed man raises a nat- ural doubt as to the skill with which she was managed and is evidence of negligence, but it is not of itself negli- gence. Violation of law does not make her an outlaw or a trespasser.—Rich- ards v. City of Boston, 43 F. (2d) 448. * Bd oe N THE case of Meyer v. Dollar Steam- ship line, 43 F. (2d) 4255, the court said: ‘‘ ‘Seaman,’ no doubt, once meant a person who could hand, reef, and steer, a mariner in the full sense of the: word. Changed conditions and neces- sities gave ‘seaman’ an enlarged mean- ing. The cook and the surgeon, por- ters, chambermaids, and employees. other than able seamen, have been in- cluded. The term ‘seaman,’ however,. has never been extended to include prize fighters, wrestlers, etc., but, no: doubt, if employed as such to carry out some purpose of the ship, would be included. * * * While sailors are wards of admiralty and are rather ex- cused than condemned for accidental mistakes while in the faithful and obedient discharge of duty, the court, however, does judicially know that in-- telligence, status, and condition of sea-- men has progressed with the improved methods of navigation, and the reasons. for such guardianship have been les- sened, that a voyage now is made with- in two or three months that, within several generation, ordinarily required two or three years, and that the term ‘drunken sailor’ has become obsolete: in the American marine. It may not be said that a seaman who engages in prize fistic encounter, or wrestling, o1 in any test of physical strength or agility, is engaged in discharge of any obligation in the shipping articles. The resultant test of physical strength was a personal matter, pleasure, or privilege while off watch and not in the discharge of any obligation under the articles.” * * * SEAMAN may recover damages. for an assault committed by a subordinate officer who acts within the general scope and line of his em-- ployment. In the instant case it ap- peared that injuries to a seaman were: permanent in character, his nose being” fractured and his breathing obstructed, and the court held that he should be- awarded the sum of $400.—Bonsalem v.. Byron Steamship Co., 43 F. (2d) 443.