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 N THE case of WELFARE, 1 F. Supp. 585, the commissioner in his find- ings fixing the value of the barge before and after its grounding in 1930 and the damage thereto, based his conclusion as to market value on sales of similar barges. Objec- tion was made on the ground that be- cause of the decreased condition of business there was no such person as a “willing seller.” The court sus- tained the commissioner, saying that if the objection were sound, there would never be sales sufficient to es- tablish market value during a fall- ing market, or times of business de- pression; “when a man sells some- thing because he wants to, he is a willing seller, that is, he would rather sell than continue to own.” * * VOYAGE, as respects the ves- sel’s liability for error in man- agement, commences as to the cargo owner at the port from which the cargo is shipped.—LUCKENBACH, 1 F. Supp. 692. * * * N DELIVERY and stowage of car- go on shipboard, the ship be- came bound to the cargo and the cai> go to the ship. The vessel, a common carrier, a commerce ship carrying car- go for hire, was bound to receive and carry tendered cargo for just com- pensation over its regular route, and to transport such cargo without unrea- sonable delay. This duty was imposed by the common law, and is imposed for the common good, irrespective of con- tract. Failing to discharge this duty, the shipper had election to sue the ship in tort or pursue his remedy on contract.—Paciric Sprucr, 1 F. Supp. 598. ek e * HERE a hatchway was so lo- cated as to be near the path of those who had occasion to pass to and from the vessel, a duty was imposed upon the ship to make the pathway reasonably safe for the purpose for which it was expected to be used, and if the hatchway was open to provide reasonably safeguard and _ protection in accordance with the usages, cus- toms, and ordinary requirements of the ship’s business so that the passage- way near it would be rendered rea- sonably safe. ‘There was no obliga- 22 tion,” said the court in the case oi QUAKER City, 1 F. Supp. 840, “to make of the deck near the hatchway a ‘squared circle’ safe against the mis- haps which might befall battling pugilists.” # * * AINTENANCE and care of an in M jured seaman comprehended sus- tenance and care for a reasonable period of time following the injury, and what amounts to or constitutes a reasonable period depends upon the condition in each individual case. Such period does not necessarily end with wages or the voyage.—JAMES E. Frr- ris, 1 F. Supp. 1018. * 8 & HE obligation of a ship for cure Ta maintenance is aside from all thought of tort, negligence, or fault. “The principle,’ it was declared in QUAKER City, 1 F. Supp. 840, ‘is really one of necessity backed by humanity.” In holding that where injury to a sea- man, not on ship’s business, is brought about by his gross misconduct, ship is relieved from liability for cure and maintenance, and that right to cure and maintenance depends upon whether the seaman, at the time of injury, was in the general service of the ship, the court said: ‘Members of the crew have no haven other than the ship, If sickness or hurt befalls them, what can be done? They can- not be left to die or be fed to the sharks. The ship must per force take care of them. There is likewise the humanity appeal which runs into the Same necessity. It would be inhuman to leave a helpless man without suc- cor. Some one should give him aid. Who other than the ship? * * * The sailor must, of course, be in the serv- ice of the ship or there is no obliga- tion, but it does not follow that he loses the right to cure and mainte- nance unless he is actually at work when sickness or hurt comes upon Aim FOX TE Ng always to be kept in mind that the obligation is not founded upon any fault of the ship. It is further to be noted that the right to cure is not because the injury or sickness was due to the mere fault of the seaman.” The court then held that the fact that a seaman at the time he fell down a hatchway was drunk did not defeat recovery from the ship for cure and maintenance. MARINE REVIEw—July, 1933 HE owner of a passenger vessel may not relieve himself of all lia- bility, or limit his liability, to passen- gers, merely by purchasing a vessel, without any examination by him to as- certain whether it is in fact sea- worthy, or whether it is properly equipped in accordance with law. In other words, the mere purchase of a ship and the delivery thereof by the owner to the master, is not a com- pliance with the law, and does not en- title him to limit his liability for in- jury to passengers resulting from de- fects in the structure or the equip- ment of the vessel. It is the owner’s duty in the first instance to see that the vessel is properly equipped and seaworthy.—Princess Sopura, 61 F. (2d) 339. * ok ® Y THE general maritime law, it was declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cortes v. Baltimore Insular line, 53 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173, a seaman is without a remedy against the ship or her owners for injury to his per- son, suffered in the line of service, with two exceptions only. A remedy is his if the injury has been suffered as a consequence of the unseaworthi- ness of the ship or a defect in her equipment. A remedy is his also if the injury has been suffered through breach of the duty to provide him with “maintenance and cure.” The duty to make such provision is im- posed by the law itself as one annexed to the employment. Contractual ii is in the sense that it has its source in relation which is contractual in origin, but, given the relation, no agreement is competent to abrogate the incident. If the failure to give maintenance or cure has caused or aggravated an illness, the seaman has his right of action for the injury thus done to him; the recovery in such circumstances including not only nec- essary expenses, but also compensation for the hurt. On the other hand, the remedy for the injury ends with his death in the absence of a_ statute continuing it or giving it to another for the use of wife or kin. Death is a composer of strife by the general law of the sea as it was for many cen- turies by the common law of the land. Under the merchant marine act of 1920, a seaman’s administrator may recover for death caused by the mas- ter’s failure to give the seaman proper care during illness.