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 N THE case of PHOENIX, 3 Fed. Supp. 1017, the court held that the evi- dence established that unseaworthiness of the vessel, consisting of a defec- tive “Jacob’s ladder,” was the proxi- mate cause of injuries sustained when the ladder broke while a seaman was descending from the ship to the dock, and that the seaman suffered approxi- mately 50 per cent disability from in- juries to his hand and arm. The sea- man, it was decided, was entitled to $2000 for compensatory damages, wages, maintenance and cure. RR ek volved in the cast of GorHic STar, 4 Fed. Supp. 240, exempted the car- rier from liability for damage caused by decay, and libel was brought be- cause of the decayed condition of fruit on its arrival at the port of desti- nation. The court held that it was in- cumbent on the shipper to show by a preponderance of proof that negligence on the carrier’s part caused or con- tributed to the decay. Of prime in- terest is the court’s description of the vessel libeled, as follows: “The GoTHIC STar is a refrigerated vessel, equipped for carrying fruit from the Pacific coast to European ports. The com- partments are insulated and kept cold by the cold air system, cold air being driven through a trunk along the star- board side, escaping into the compart- ments through holes in the trunk and being sucked back through similar holes in a trunk along the port side. In this way cold air constantly circu- lates across the compartments and the desired low temperatures are main- tained. The cold air method is su- perior to the brine method often used on refrigerating ships**” Ge contract of affreightment in- es Fe # CT OF congress of July 20, 1790, provided that the master of a ship bound from a port in the United States to any foreign port * * * must make an agreement in writing or print with every seaman on board in a prescribed form; and, further, that the failure of the master to so do made him liable to pay the seamen the highest wages which shall have been given at. the place of shipping for a similar voyage within three months before the shipping. This statute, it was declared in the case of Lity, 4 Fed. Supp. 268, is not 24 applicable to voyages to Mexico, be- cause of the provisions of subsequent acts of June 7, 187.2, and January 15, 1873. The first of these acts pro- vided that the master of every ship bound to a foreign port must make an agreement in writing in certain terms with his seamen before a ship- ping commissioner. The second act amended the first by adding the pro- viso that it should not apply to mas- ters of vessels when engaged in trade between the United States and the British North American possessions, or the West Indies islands, or the Re- public of Mexico. * * * LAIMS for damages to vessels, ex- cept in most unusual circum- stances, must be limited to the value of the vessels. If the cost of repair- ing a vessel injured in collision be ’ greater than the price at which a ves- sel to replace her could be purchased in the open market, obviously such vessel ought to be considered a total loss, and the measure of damages recoverable is her market value, with interest from time of collision, and incidental expenses. It is funda- mental in the law of damages that the injured party is entitled to com- pensation for the loss’ sustained. Where property is destroyed by wrongful act, the owner is entitled to its money equivalent, and thereby to be put in as good position pecuni- arily as if his property had not been destroyed. In the case of the total loss of a vessel, the measure of dam- ages is its market value, if it has a market value at the time of destruc- tion.— RurHise M. 4 Fed. Supp. 317. * oe & A GAS serew boat, by proceeding to high seas outside the terri- torial limits of the United States and making contact there with a vessel of foreign registry, did not make a for- eign voyage within the provisions of section 4337 of the revised statutes of the United States, so as to be sub- ject to forfeiture for not having first given up her enrollment and license. So long as a vessel is passing from one port of the United States to an- other, she may keep as far from shore as she pleases without incurring the penalty for proceeding on a foreign voyage without first giving up her enrollment and license, it was held in the case of WINNIE, 65 F. (2d) MARINE REVIEwW—January, 1934 707. <A “foreign port’? within the meaning of the statute is not any place on the high seas outside the territorial limits of the United States. A foreign port is a port or place ex- clusively within the sovereignty of a foreign nation. A voyage to such a port or place is a foreign voyage. Pleasure boats of all descriptions, the court pointed out, are ‘“‘outbound”’ day by day and go up and down the coast on the high seas, but this does not constitute a foreign voyage with- in the meaning of the statute. * * * N THE case of Inland Waterways Corp. v. Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., 65 F. (2d) 715, it ap- peared that under the original bill of lading, tobacco was to be delivered by river carrier at New Orleans to ship for a foreign port, but in con- sideration of its own separate freight, the ship issued its own contract of carriage and did not adopt the origi- nal one, It was held, therefore, that each carrier was bound, in the ab- sence of a statute or contract other- wise, only for safe carriage over its own line and safe delivery to the next connecting carrier. It was held, fur- ther, that a shipper has a lien for damage done to goods actually put aboard ship and may proceed in rem against the ship for damages; that goods may become cargo entitled to lien against the ship for damages be- fore actual deposit on ship if brought alongside on the wharf or a lighter and custody for immediate carriage is accepted by the ship’s officers; that, while a bill of lading is material evi- dence that the carrier has taken custody of goods, it is neither essen- tial or conclusive; and that a ship, like any other consignee, is entitled to inspect goods before accepting them for carriage. * * * N LINE with the preceding decision it was said in the case of United States v. Bruce Dry Dock Co., 65 If. (2d) 938, that it is not essential to jurisdiction in admiralty that a tort be committed on board a vessel. It was decided that a master of a gov- ernment lightship, thrown onto a dry dock during a hurricane, was negli- gent in leaving it in a slip insecurely moored to the wharf whether repair work thereon had been completed: or not.