The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-07
The Liability of Ship-OWners In the
Absence OF Limitations
Absolute


Absence Of Limitations
Absolute.
Charles Page, the wellknown admiralty
lawyer, gave the following statement to a
CALL reporter last evening concerning the
liability of the steamship company for the
loss of life and property:
The liability Of ship-owmers for failure to
deliver cargo IN the absence of Limitations
created By the bill of Jading is absolute, I'm
less the loss is caused by the act of God or a
peril of the sea. Uilseauorthiness of the yes
sci, If 1t contributes in any aoay to loss, is
ground for holding the ship-owner, euem
though the unseaworthiness be caused by a
hidden defect. The rule is that any neglect
creates liability. The burden is upon the
ship to obsolve itself by proof that the Toss was
due entirely to the accepted perils-that Is, the
act of God or pertls of the sea. The maritime
taW of the United States and the statute OF
1898, kmoao'' as the Harter act, make void any
stipulation whereby the ship-oscner attempts to
protect himself against his o,om or his SER
vonts negligence.
Ihas liability of the ship-owner IS qualified
IN one way by the Revised Statutes of the
United States, sections 4sSS-4ss4, sohioh limit
the liability of the ship-owner to the value OF
the ship and any collected freights, provided
that the loss, though caused By negligence,
s0ds not done or suffered "With the privilege 0,
kmowtedge" of the gunner. And en- another
,0ay, by the Harter act above referred to,
wh'ch says that If the gunner shall take rea-
sond6te means to make has vessel seawOrthy
neither he nor his ship shall be liable for err
rors IN judgment or faulty navigation on the
part OF has SERVANTS In the one case the owrer
| may surrender his vessel to ansuer for the
neglect Of the agent Ito which the gunner ,Das
not prduy), and on making the surrender all
claimants must look to that for a fund to re-
sn'6urse them, though 1t be total Toss, and IN
the other the oa0ner goes free.
There IS some question Whether the act o,
1854 United States Statutes does not absolut
me o1ner, eoem though he be personally guilta
OF negligence, procided he surrenders has yes
see or q'pes bond in an appraised palue
Wndteeef the courts may hereafter decide o.,
| 1"'S point 1t as undoubtedly the low that Il
| oesset De lost through the neglect of TIKI
master or Of the agent mot the general aoen,
IN charge Of the affairs of the corporatior) tn,
Gunner may limit his liability for the goods o,
s'0eS toSt 10 the ualue Of the Ureck, which n,o1
DC nothing at all. He IS not euen required tt
| contribute insurance moneys Which he ma,
have collected.
me general agent of a corporation is meces.
| Sofey the corporation, as corporation can
| 0ct only through agents; consequently, knowL
cage or prtvity through such agent Is TIL.
enootedge or privity of the corporation, whici
a0ou'd then become liable for the neglect thu.
brought home to it.
At me maritime law no damages are re-
co0era6te for death caused by negligence. III.
STATE statutes providing for such damages
ha0e sometimes been en- forced in the Admirals,
| Court against vessels, but the point remain.
undecided by the Supreme Court of the United
States. Such statutes ,oould be imperative I'd
create a liability for death caused on tht
| high seas.