SHIPOWNER’S LIABILITY FOR LOST CARGO.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 926, 16 March 1881, Page 3

SHIPOWNER’S LIABILITY FOR LOST CARGO.

A special meeting of Council of the Sunderland Chamber of Commerce was held on December 21st, to consider the following resolution which the Special Shipping Committee recommended should be submitted to the annual meeting of the Association of the Chambers of the United Kingdom, to be held in London on February Ist, 1881: —“ That the law by which owners of vessels are held responsible for the loss of cargo through the negligence of officers should be so altered, that each person interested in a vessel, or in the goods or effects on board such vessel, shall, as regards errors on the part of the officers, each bear their own risk, and that the officers in default should alone be held personally responsible.” Mr. Horan moved the adoption of the resolution submitted by the Committee. Shipowners, as the law at present stood, were placed in a very awkward position. The Board of Trade took upon themselves to examine masters and mates and grant them certificates of Competency, and out of these certificated masters and mates the owners were compelled to choose their officers. It was not a matter of option, because they could not go outside of them. In the case of the compulsory pilot, if any damage was done the owner was held irresponsible, because he was under the control of the pilot. Formerly, as now, it was considered a joint venture by those who shipped their goods, those who risked their vessel, and those who risked their lives, and in the case of accident they fell back on their insurers. But that was before investigations took place. After the ships left the port it was impossible for the owners to have any control over them, and if a casualty occurred, and an investigation took place, and resulted in the captain or officers being held blameable, then immediately the owners of the goods sued the owners of the ships, who had not only to suffer the loss of the ships, but to pay for these goods besides. It was quite true that the owners signed bills of lading to carry these goods subject to the dangers and accidents of the sea of whatever nature or kind ; but probably the Court found that the accident was avoidable, and was caused by the negligence of the officer in command ; and although bills of lading protected them from accidents, they did not define whether the accidents were those which could have been avoided. The position at present was such that a person might go to bed solvent at night and rise in the morning a bankrupt, in consequence of an act over which he had no personal control. He thought it was time that this state of things should be altered, and therefore he had brought forward this resolution. The question arose out of a case which followed upon an accident which happened to a steamer carrying Government stores to the Cape of Good Hope. The vessel get ashore, and the captain having been held blamable, the Government sued the owner, who had to pay for the property. The Chairman: What you want is to have the owners of the cargo in the same position aS the owners of the ship ? Mr. Horan : Yes. The owner of a cargo insures his cargo, and in case of an accident he comes on his underwriters for it. The underwriters take advantage of an examination, which results in the decision that the ship and the goods were lost through the negligence of the servants of the owners of the ship, and they come on the owners and recover for the cargo. Mr. Horan (in reply to a question) said it was only when an enquiry was held and blame attributed that the owner of the cargo came on the owners of the vessel. Mr. Ellis said that, after all was said, shipowners w r ere but common carriers of goods, and the absolute lia-

bility tinder the contracts they entered into was limited in two ways by the charty-party —acts of God were accepted, and again by statute they were only liable to the extent of £8 a ton. Under these circumstances it was a very serious question whether they should endeavor to effect such a sweeping alteration of the law as the resolution meant. The Chairman remarked that that shipowner, previous to 1880, had not been made liable.

Mr. Horan : Oh, yes, he has been liable.

Mr. Ellis : The liability has existed for ages, but these numerous enquiries have made the matter more serious. When you consider the question on the broad grounds as between two persons, the owner of the goods and the owner of the vessel, surely the person who ought to bear the loss was the one whose trade it was to carry the goods for hire, although, as Mr. Horan had explained, shipowners were not situated as ordinary carriers. Mr. Horan said that abroad parties might be called to sit in judgment who knew nothing about the subject, and by their verdict the insurers of the cargo were enabled to sue the owners. Previous to these enquiries no merchant or underwriter would enter an action for recovery, because they would have to prove. Mr. Ellis : The result is that public attention is called to the matter. Mr. Hudson : The evidence has all been published. Mr. Ellis: But the plaintiff has still to prove his case. You are not bound by any Court but the one before which you bring your claim, but of course the plaintiff’s claim may have been made easier by the previous enquiry. Mr. Horan: Your servants are perhaps dispersed all over the globe, and there is nothing brought forward but the evidence of these unprejudiced men.

After a little further discussion it was agreed, on the suggestion of Mr. Ellis, that the resolution should take this form : —“ That it is desirable to call the attention of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain to the state of the law by which shipowners are held responsible for loss of cargo arising from the negligence of officers in charge of said ships.”