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 HERE merchandise is shown W i have been received in good order and condition and delivered in bad order and condition, the ship- owner must show a seaworthy ves- sel and that the merchandise was properly stowed in a proper berth; it must satisfactorily explain these matters; such proof cannot be sup- plied by speculation.—Cafiero & Meneacci v. Navigazione Libera Tries- tina. S. A., 50 -F: (2d) 199. * * * IMITATION of liability is permis- ie sible only where the owner of the vessel can show lack of knowl- edge or privity of unseaworthy con- dition; the burden of showing which is on the owner. Where the unsea- worthiness is due to a generally de- eayed condition of the vessel which renders. it unable to withstand the ordinary wear and tear of service, the owner’s lack of knowledge can only mean that the owner did not inspect the vessel or provide a regular sys- tem of inpection. In the case of Dexter-Carpenter Coal Co. v. N. Y., O. & W. Ry. Co., 50 F. (2d) 270, the evidence established that the barge in question had seen its best days long before the commencement of the trip on which she sank, and its unfitness visible to any one on care- ful inspection. ‘‘Under such circum- stances,’’ said the court, ‘“‘proof by the owner that repairs had been made to the barge several months before the sinking and that a car- penter in its employ went over its boats and did minor jobs on them, does not suffice to bring the case within the limitation act.’’ *% *% * LEGAL obligation rests upon A a ship to use due diligence to save one of the crew, who, by his own neglect, falls into the sea; and the owners are liable if, by failure to perform this duty, his life is lost. The reason is apparent, it was said in the case of Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 50 F. (2d) 866, when we consider the peculiar relationship of the seaman to his ship, which, irrespective of statute, has been rec- ognized from the earliest period. There is no other peaceful pursuit in which the dominion of the superior is so absolute and the dependence of the subordinate so complete, as in that of a sailor upon a vessel at sea. He binds himself by the contract of 52 employment to serve the ship during the voyage, and desertion may be made an offense punishable by im- prisonment. He owes’ obedience while on shipboard to his superior officers, and is bound to execute their lawful commands even at the risk of danger to his person or his life; and their right to enforce obedience by proper discipline and punishment has been recognized. If he is taken sick or is injured on board the ship, or is cast into the sea by the vi- olence of the elements or by mis- ' fortune or negligent conduct, he is completely dependent for care and safety upon such succor as may be given by the members of the crew. By reason of these conditions, the maritime law extends to mariners a protection greater than is afforded by the general rules of common law to those employed in service upon the land. From time immemorial, sea- men have been called ‘‘wards of ad- miralty;’’ and in this country as else- where the legislature has enacted an elaborate system of legislation for their protection. Regardless of leg- islation, it is universally recognized that it is the duty of a vessel to care for a seaman who is taken sick or receives an injury on a voyage in the service of the ship, to the extent of providing medical care and at- tendance, and, if possible, a cure at the expense of the ship. And it is even required, where a serious ac- cident occurs, that the master shall exercise reasonable judgment as to putting into the nearest available port, in order that proper treatment may secured. . Equally clear is the obligation upon the part of the ship to save the life of a sailor who falls overboard through a misadventure, not uncommon in his dangerous eall- ing. It is absurd to admit the duty to extend in the lesser emergency, and to deny it in the greater. In both cases, it is implied in the con- tract that the ship shall use every reasonable means to save the life of a human being who has no other source of help. The universal cus- tom of the sea demands as much | wherever human life is in danger. The seaman’s contract of employment requires it as a matter of right. * Ed * OMPENSATION for services in rendering assistance to a ship at sea or her cargo, or both, from im- MARINE REview—April, 1932 pending sea peril, when successful and voluntary, is a maritime lien upon the ship or cargo, or both and may be impressed in rem; and where the owners or underwriters employ such services, proceedings in per-- sonam against the employed may be had. There is no authority to pro- ceed against the ship in rem and in personam against the employers in the same libel.— Georgia Co. v. Rich- Held. Olt Co.” 50: -F. (2d) 904. * * * SALVOR is entitled to a salvage award as against anyone whom he may have benefited by successful Salvage services. * * * A claim for salvage may be maintained in _ per- sonam against any party whose rela- tionship to the vessel or thing salved is such that he might have been li- able in respect of its damage or loss, or who, though not its owner, is bene- fited by its being salved, as was the case where the salving of cargo gave the United States an opportunity to impose customs duties on it. * * Al- though, generally speaking, the ship and cargo must proportionately bear the salvaged expenses where there is a common peril, yet, where the sal- vage services are rendered necessary by the ship’s negligence, the cargo may be relieved from contribution and the vessel bound for the entire ex- pense.—Tice Towing line v. James Mc- Williams Blue line, 51 F. (2d) 248. * * BS NDER an exemption clause in the U contract of carriage, “No claims for variation of weights or shrinkage will be allowed except in case of loss due to negligence on the part of the carrier,’ to effectively claim the ex emption from liability for shortage, the operator of a barge line, it was declared in the case of Inland Water- ways Corp. v. Hallet & Carey Co., 52 F.. (2d) 18, must show that the exemp- tion claimed is within the terms of the contract, and this is not shown by simply showing a shortage; it must also show that the shortage was a non-negligent one. ee *% * *k AVIGABILITY of a stream in law is dependent upon navigability in fact. The old doctrine of the com- mon law that the ebb and flow of the tide establishes navigability has no ap- plication in this country.—Clark v.— Pigeon River Improvement Slide & Boom Co., 52 F. (2d) 550. pik peas