BILLS OF LADING

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 272, 11 August 1921, Page 9

BILLS OF LADING

LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNER INfERESTiNG LEGAL POINTS EMPHASISED In the Supreme Court yesterday His Honour Mr. Justice Sim delivered judgment in a case in which Murie and Ritchie, Ltd. (Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb), sued W. Wallis (Mr. A. W. Blair), for damages alleged to have been done to goods consigned to the plaintiffs. Briefly the facts of tho case were as followOn or about March 10, 1920, a case containing six pieces of indigo worsted twill was shipped on board tho steamship Paparoa at Liverpool, to be carried to Wellington and there delivered to the order of the plaintiffs. The case was delivered to tho plaintiffs, but on examination it was found to contain only three pieces of indigo worsted twill. Liability for this loss was admitted by the shipowner, and the only question was as to tho basis on which the damages should be assessed. The plaintiffs claimed to bo entitled to tho sum of J 3211 2s. od., made up of the invoice cost of tho three, missing pieces of twill, pluj landing charges. On behalf of the shipowner it was claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to only Ji ICG 13s. id. as damages, and that these could not, in any view of the matter, exceed .£2OO. In the coarse of the judgment His Honour said: “The liability of tho shipowner depends on tho proper construction of clause D of the bill of lading, which provides that shipowners will not bo accountable for goods, merchandise, or things of any description .... 'be-

yond .£2OO, in respect of any one package, unless in either case the value shall have been stated in writing, both on the broker’s order, which must be obtained before shipment, and also on tho shipping note presented on shipment, and extra freight agreed upon and paid, and bills of lading signed, with declaration of tho nature and value of the goods appearing thereon. When tho value is declared and extra freight agreed as aforesaid, the shipowner's liability shall not exceed such value. The shipowner shall, notwithstanding anything in this contract, have tho benefit of all exemptions from the limitations of liability contained in tho Merchant Shipping Act, 189-t (England), and any existing modifications thereof.’ ” Continuing, His Honour stated: “The goods in question were measurement goods, and the value thereof had not been stated in terms of this clause. It was contended by Mr. Blair that in these circumstances the limit of .£lO per cubic foot applied to the plaintiffs’ claim. It was contended on 'behalf of the plaintiffs that this limitation could not apply where part only of tho contents of a package had been lost or damaged on the voyage, and that it was intended' to apply only where the whole package was lost or destroyed. There does not appear to be any valid reason for restricting in this way the operations of the clause. There may be difficulty in applying tho .£lO per cubic foot limit in some casee, but that is not a reason for saying that it is not to apply at all to a case of partial loss. In the present case the shipowner may r.ot bo quite right in tho way in which that limit has been applied to tho plaintiff’s claim. The measurement of the case containing the twill was 21 feet + inches. It contained six pieces of twill, of which only three wero delivered, and the sum of ifilo6 13s. Id. was arrived at by treating the liability as being for half the contents of the case, on the measurement basis. It is not admitted, however, that all the pieces in the case were of the same size, and there may have to be some adjustment of 'the amount. It "is clear, in my opinion, that the shipowner is entitled to have tho damages assessed on the .£lO per cubic foot basis. If in any case that limit would 'bring the amount payable in respect of one package to more than .£209, the shipowner’s liability is limited then to .£2OO. That, in my opinion, is the proper constructon of the bill of lading, and, as agreed, the further hearing of the case stands adjourned to enable the plaintiffs and defendant to call evidence ns to tho reasonableness of the limitations provided by the bill of lading.”