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 G. K. WENTWORTH, 67 F. (2d) 965, it appeared that a river tugowner placed the captain in complete charge and relied on the captain’s best judgment. While pro- eeeding upstream, pushing three barges lashed abreast, the tug col- lided with a steamship traveling down the river. It was held in a suit by the steamship owners that the fact that the improper manner of placing a lookout according to custom known to the tugowner contributed to the collision was not such privity or knowledge by the owner as to prevent limitation of liability. The owner was entitled to rely on observance of the rules of navigation by a competent master, as regards limitation of lia- bility, and could not be held person- ally liable for the falling off in value of the vessel between the time of the collision and the time of the surrender in limitation proceedings, unless de- preciation was the shipowner’s fault. N general, a seaman does not assume the risk of any unseaworthiness, though known to him when he em- barks. This does not however excuse him when he has an alternative, nor does it excuse those who, though strictly speaking they are seamen, are employed upon harbor craft, on which they serve only during the day, leav- ing each night to go home, and renew- ing their work every morning, like any shore workmen. Such men are in the position of longshoremen or other casual workers on the water, who assume all obvious risks, quite as though they were injured on shore. Applying this rule, it was held in the case of Scheffler vy. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., 68 F. (2d) 11, that a cook injured when acting as a deck hand while scows were being made fast to a tug by negligently get- ting his leg in a bight of a towing strap assumed the risk of the tug’s shorthandedness, even if shorthand- edness rendered the tug unseaworthy. * HE duty to use care in keeping a ship and her appliances in safe condition, e. g., seaworthy, is a contin- uing duty resting upon the owner and is nondelegable. Seaworthiness com- prehends, not only the condition of the vessel for the purpose of the voy- 24 age, but also the safety of the appli- ances by means of which the passen- gers and freight are embarked and disembarked. The burden to show that a vessel is seaworthy is upon the owner, it was held in the case of Hen- son y. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 68 F. (2d) 144. In this case it was further decided that shipowners are exempt from liability (other than that due to imputed negligence) when they exercise due diligence in the selection of trustworthy, experienced, and ca- pable persons to repair and make their ships seaworthy, but where the owner engaged a country blacksmith to weld a ferry chain, he was liable for the death of occupants of a truck resulting from the breaking of the chain when the truck was being driven off the ferry, nor was the owner entitled to limited liability. * & FFICERS of the coast guard may go .on board any vessel at any place within the United States and within four leagues of the coast to examine the manifest and make search and examine a vessel without the necessity of showing probable cause in advance or procuring a search warrant. This power involved the power to go so far in searching the vessel, it was declared in United States v. Wischerth 68 F. (2d) 161, as to ascertain whether she was engaged in fishing in accordance with her license, and officers, having discovered liquors thereon, had the right to search com- pletely and seize the contraband cargo. ste ste Ey Eg CEAN carriers, by specific regula- tions distinctly brought to the knowledge of the passenger which are reasonable in their character and not inconsistent with any statute or their duties to the public, may protect them- selves against liability, as insurers, for baggage exceeding a fixed amount in value, except upon additional compen- sation proportioned to the risk. Where the language of the valuation clause contains notice to the shipper or pas- senger of a definite agreed valuation or limitation unless a higher value is declared and increased compensation paid to the carrier, the liability of the carrier must be measured by the or- dinary valuation, since it has received only the ordinary rate. The fact that the passenger is an infant at the time MARINE REVIEW—May, 1934 of the voyage does not relieve the pas- senger from compliance with the valu- ation clause of the ticket on which she traveled.—LEVIATHAN, 4 Fed. Supp. Besse Me HILE the court decisions have been liberal, holding not only those things which are physically ma- terial and absolutely necessary to her existence or preservation which are in- corporated into her or used on board to be necessaries for a vessel, but also those which a careful and prudent owner would provide, to enable her to perform well the functions which, as a maritime agent, she is designed to perform, it was held in the case of Henry S., 4 Fed. Supp. 953, that pound nets and poles used in fishing grounds. and operated in stationary and _ per- manent positions are not a part of the equipment of a fishing boat subject to a maritime lien for the purchase price of an engine installed in the boat. ae T IS required of a carrier of goods by sea that he furnish a seaworthy vessel at the beginning of the voyage and that he complete the voyage by the nearest route to the destination. A trial trip by a vessel is not a cus- tomary part of a voyage from loading place to destination, and where on the trial trip a vessel went out of the usual course from Mobile to Antwerp, it was) guilty of deviation. Deviation was not excused by liberty clauses im bills of lading providing that the ship- owner might have liberty to proceed to any port in any order, where, on return from the trial trip the steam- ship did not proceed to the port of Pensacola, but discharged officers con- stituting the trial board at Pensacola Buoy.—City oF BRUNSWICK, 4). Fed. Supp. 908. * * % HE word “seaman” within the pro- vision of the merchant marine act, authorizing a seaman to maintain an action at law for damages for per- sonal injuries, was broad enough, said the court in the case of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Zalrobsky, 68 F. (2d) 454, to include a stevedore engaged in maritime work. Such provision did not abrogate an injured stevedore’s right to bring an action for damages under the general maritime law for injuries sustained in the course of em- ployment on a ship prior to enactment of the harbor workers’ compensation. act.