Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/420
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 07:26:09
Document Index: 253288955

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 190', '§ 192', '§ 182', '§ 3', '§ 4283', '§ 183', '§ 18', '§ 189']

EARLE & STODDART, Inc., et al. v. ELLERMAN'S WILSON LINE, Limited. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
287 U.S. 420 (53 S.Ct. 200, 77 L.Ed. 403)
Argued: Oct. 19, 1932.
Argument of Counsel from pages 421-422 intentionally omitted
First. The fire statute, in terms, relieves the owners from liability 'unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner.' The statute makes no other exception from the complete immunity granted. The cargo owners do not make the broad contention that the statute affords no protection to the vessel owner if the fire was caused by unseaworthiness existing at the commencement of the voyage. 1 Their contention is that it does not relieve the owner if the unseaworthiness was discoverable by due diligence. The argument is that the duty of the owner to make the ship seaworthy before starting on her voyage is nondelegable, and if the unseaworthiness could have been discovered by due diligence there was necessarily neglect of the vessel owner.
In support of this contention, the cargo owners place some reliance upon The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.S. 199, 14 S.Ct. 823, 38 L.Ed. 688; The Caledonia, 157 U.S. 124, 15 S.Ct. 537, 39 L.Ed. 644; and The Carib Prince, 170 U.S. 655, 18 S.Ct. 753, 42 L.Ed. 1181. Those cases enunciate the rule that in every contract of affreightment there is, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, an implied warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage. The warranty is absolute that the ship is in fact seaworthy at that time, and the liability does not depend upon the knowledge or ignorance, the care or negligence, of the shipowner or charterer. Obviously, those cases lend no support to the contention that breach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness constitutes 'neglect' of the vessel owner under the fire statute. 2
The cargo owners rely chiefly upon International Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., 181 U.S. 218, 21 S.Ct. 591, 45 L.Ed. 830, and The Wildcroft, 201 U.S. 378, 26 S.Ct. 467, 50 L.Ed. 794. Those cases involved the construction of the Harter Act (46 USCA §§ 190195), and the language there employed is different. The Harter Act provides in section 3 (46 USCA § 192) that the vessel owner shall not be liable if he 'shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy.' And under that act the requirement of due diligence is not satisfied if there is negligence on the part of any of the ship's employees. International Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., supra. But the act does not purport to create any general duty on the part of shipowners. Its requirement of due diligence is imposed as a condition of securing immunity from liability for certain kinds of losses, like those due to errors in navigation or management. That the provisions of the Harter Act do not refer to liability for losses arising from fire is made clear by section 6 ( 27 Stat. 446) which declares that the act 'shall not be held to modify or repeal sections four thousand two hundred eighty-one, four thousand two hundred eighty-two, and four thousand two hundred eighty-three of the Revised Statutes'section 4282 (46 USCA § 182) being the fire statute. The courts have been careful not to thwart the purpose of the fire statute by interpreting as 'neglect' of the owners the breach of what in other connections is held to be a nondelegable duty. 3 Nothing contained in the opinion of this court in The Malcolm Baxter, Jr., 277 U.S. 323, 48 S.Ct. 516, 72 L.Ed. 901, is to be taken as indicating a different view.
Second. No provision in any bill of lading deprives the vessel owner of the protection given by the fire statute. There are 238 bills of lading on 18 different forms. In no bill of lading is there an express warranty of seaworthiness. In each, there is a provision expressly incorporating the fire statute. Many of the bills of lading contain also this provision: 'It is mutually agreed that * * * the carrier shall not be liable, as carrier or otherwise, for any loss, damage, delay or default, whether occurring during transit or before, * * * occasioned by fire or flood, from any cause or wheresoever occurring; * * * by explosion, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, of any latent defect in hull, machinery, or appurtenances, or unseaworthiness of the steamer, whether existing at the time of shipment, or at the beginning of the voyage, provided the owners have exercised due diligence to make the steamer seaworthy. * * *' So far as loss from fire is concerned, the quoted provision leaves the area of personal neglect unchanged, adding nothing to the obligations of the vessel owner. And in view of the express incorporation of the fire statute in the bill of lading, the provision is not to be construed as a waiver of the statutory immunity for loss by fire. 4
Third. There was no personal contract of the vessel owner superseding the fire statute. The cargo owners invoke the rule announced in Pendleton v. Benner Line, 246 U.S. 353, 38 S.Ct. 330, 62 L.Ed. 770, and Luckenbach v. McCahan Sugar Refining Co., 248 U.S. 139, 39 S.Ct. 53, 63 L.Ed. 170, 1 A.L.R. 1522. Those cases have no application here. They declare that the statutes limiting the amount of liability of a shipowner to the amount or value of his interest in the vessel and her freight then pending (Act of March 3, 1851, c. 43, § 3, Rev. Stat. § 4283 (46 USCA § 183) Act of June 26, 1884, c. 121, § 18, 23 Stat. 53, 57 (46 USCA § 189)) do not apply to personal contracts of the owner. 5 Here the inquiry is not whether there was a 'personal contract,' on which the shipowner can be held to the full amount of the loss, but whether he can be held liable at all. He cannot be held liable unless by agreement, or otherwise, he has waived the benefit of the fire statute. The only basis for the claim of waiver is the bill of lading. What has already been said concerning their provisions disposes of that inquiry.
Compare The Strathdon (C.C.A.) 101 F. 600, 602; The Hoffmans (D.C.) 171 F. 455, 462, 463; The Yungay (D.C.) 58 F.(2d) 352, 357; D'Utassy v. Mallory S.S. Co., 162 App.Div. 410, 412414, 147 N.Y.S. 313, affirmed per curiam 223 N.Y. 592, 119 N.E. 1040; Louis Dreyfus & Co. v. Tempus Shipping Co., (1931) A.C. 726; Ingram & Royle v. Services Maritimes du Tre port, (1914) 1 K.B. 541. With these cases compare the Poleric (D.C.) 17 F.(2d) 513, 514516, affirmed sub. nom. Bank Line v. Porter (C.C.A.) 25 F.(2d) 843; Virginia Carolina Chemical Co. v. Norfolk & N.A. Steam Shipping Co., (1912) 1 K.B. 229.