New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-18
VOLTURN0 DAMAGES
ONLY ON NEGLIGENCE
Admiralty Lawyer Says Lack OF
Fire Fighting Apparatus
Must Be Proved.
SUITS UNDER ENGLISH LAW
Judge Holt Decision in Titanic
Cases To Be Followed, Prob
ably-Statutes Cover
ing Main Points.

ing Main Points.
The liability Of the owners Of the Vol
turno for damages as a result OF the loss
OF life and property In the disaster TO
| the ship depends entirely, In the opinion
of Howard S. Harrington. on whether
there was any negligence In providing
proper fire fighting apparatus on the part
of the owners. Mr.. Harrington is a
member of the firm OF Harrington.
Bigham & Englar, OF No Ga Wall street
admiralty lawyers. with English connec-
! tons. who are acting for large num-
Der Of claimants in the litigation grow
] ing out OF the Titanic disaster.
Mr. Harrington also said yesterday tha.
by reason Of the recent decision of Judge
Holt in the Titanic cases he thought the
question Of liability would be determin-
, able under English law.
| Edward l.. Thomas. general manager OF
the New York Offices OF the Uranium
! Line, last night said he believed the la
| bility of the company would be very
slight. II there should be any at all. He
said ne was satisfied from the inforna-
ton he had that no negligence could be
shown in any form un the part OF the
| owners or the officers of the ship In run
ming her or in maintaining fire precau-
| tfbns.
Mr. Harrington. when asked Yesterday
| by Tribune reporter for an opinion on
the law covering the VoIturno case. said:
II. OF course. know nothing of the facts
attending the Volturno disaster save what
| have gathered from the recent articles
| in the press, and therefore wish TO state
most emphatically that have formed no
opinion with respect TO the merits OF the
| case | understand that you merely wish
10 know in general way the principles
Of law governing a marine disaster such
as this
THE only statements that suggest pos
sible liability are those to the effect that
the fire fighting equipment with "hich
the Volturno was provided was defective
and useless. the lifeboats were old and
decayed, and that no Systematic hre
drills we're had on this or previous voy-
ages.
Under the statutes OF the United States
a vessel owner is expressly relieved of
any liability whatsoever In respect OF
damage to property by fire on vessel
provided the same is not due TO MS
design or neglect This exoneraton Is
| set out in Section i,2S2. Revised Statutes
/ OF the United States. Incorporating pro-
/ vision Of the act OF Congress OF March j.
/ 1851, the exact terms Of which are as
| follows:
! No owner OF any vessel shall be liable
/ 10 answer for or make good To any per-
son any loss or damage which may hap
/ pen TO any merchandise whatsoever
which shall be shipped taken bn or put
ON hoard any such vessel by reason or
| by means Of any fire happening TO or on
, board the vessel. unless such fire Is
caused by the design or neglect OF such
owner
.J-nder the recent decision Of Judge
Holt I'm the litigation growing out OF the
loss of the Titanic, however. the liability
! for loss OF life and property. both as re-
spects the question Of liability I'm the first
instance and the limitation of such lia-
bility II any. would be determinable UNI
der English law. as the Volturno was
British vessel. and the loss occurred on
the high seas and cid not involve another
vessel of any other nationality.
| Liability in respect OF loss OF life
claims would be governed by the provi-
sions OF the English act OF Parliament
known as Lord Campbelrs act. which
provides for recovery for loss OF life by
negligence. In this instance II Is rather
difficult to assume that the fre lighting
apparatus on the Volturno could have
/ been I'm the condition suggested In recent
reports. unless the owners or charterers
were chargeable with personal fault In
respect thereof
| I'm such event 1t would be difficult for
the owners or charterers TO obtain limi-
tation of their liability. as the English
statute carries a provision similar to that
In our own statute. TO the effect that no
! Limitation shall be granted II the negli-
gence complained of occurred with the
fault or privity of the owner or char
terer, as the case may be.
III recent newspaper reports should
prove to be accurate, legal action against
the owners or charterers may be insti-
| tuted In the courts OF this country-as
the rights OF action. II any. would be
what are known az transitory rights OF
| actlon-provided that jurisdiction could be
had by service Of ordinary process or by
attachment of property. In such action.
however, the law OF England. both In re-
spect Of primary liability and limitation
of liability. would be applied.
| LAS a matter of fact. the English law
respecting limitations OF shipowners' LA
bility is distinctly more favorable to
claimants than the corresponding law OF
the United States. Thus. under American
law, II a vessel owner is allowed to limit
his liability. he is required to pay into
court only the value OF his vessel after
the disaster-which I'm the present case
would be nothing, plus only her pending
freight moneys for the voyage on which
she was lost
Under the English law, on the other
hand. even when a shipowner is allowed
| to limit bis lab .lity. he Is required to pay
/ into court an arbitrary sum. computed
| on the tasis OF the vessels registered
tonnage. Thus. In respect Of property
damage done, the owner must pay into
court as Tor about $40 per registered ton.
and where property damage Is coupled
with personal injury or loss OF life. he
must pay into court Gl5 Tor about $75)
per registered ton.
This is true even though the vessel is