Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/517/404/156349/
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 21:53:45
Document Index: 473848971

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1300', '§ 1304', '§ 223', '§ 235', '§ 235', '§ 223']

In the Matter of the Complaint of Grace Line Inc.,plaintiff, As Owner of the Steamship Santa Leonor,for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.imperial Commodities Corp. et al., Claimants-appellants, v. Grace Line Inc., Appellee.appeal of the Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc., et al., Claimants.appeal of Seed & Feeding Corporation et al., Claimants, 517 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1975) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 1975 › In the Matter of the Complaint of Grace Line Inc.,plaintiff, As Owner of the Steamship Santa Leonor,...
In the Matter of the Complaint of Grace Line Inc.,plaintiff, As Owner of the Steamship Santa Leonor,for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.imperial Commodities Corp. et al., Claimants-appellants, v. Grace Line Inc., Appellee.appeal of the Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc., et al., Claimants.appeal of Seed & Feeding Corporation et al., Claimants, 517 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1975)
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 517 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1975)
Argued April 7, 1975. Decided May 20, 1975
Douglas A. Jacobsen, New York City (Francis M. O'Regan and Bigham Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, of counsel), for appellants Imperial Commodities Corp., and others.
Raymond P. Hayden, New York City (Robert J. Ryniker and Hill, Rivkins, Carey, Loesberg & O'Brien, New York City, of counsel), for appellants The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc., and others.
David L. Maloof, New York City (Donovan, Donovan, Maloof & Walsh, New York City, of counsel), for appellants Seed and Feeding Corp., and others.
Lawrence J. Bowles, New York City (Richard H. Sommer and Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, of counsel), for appellee Grace Line Inc.
The Carriage Of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. § 1300 et seq., is applicable, and the owner, in making its claim for exoneration, relied on § 1304(2) (a) which provides that neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss resulting from the "act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship". Specifically, the owner contended that the sinking resulted from an error in navigation by the Chilean pilot who was on the bridge or a misunderstanding of the rudder commands given by the pilot to the helmsman.
This was a finding of fact peculiarly within the province of the trial court and which we do not find to be clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S. Ct. 6, 99 L. Ed. 20 (1954). The ship owner having thus sustained its burden of proof of negligent navigation, the burden then shifted to the cargo owners to establish that the Santa Leonor was unseaworthy and that the unseaworthiness concurred with the negligence to cause the loss. J. Gerber & Company v. S. S. Sabine Howaldt, 437 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1971); Director General of India Supply Mission v. S. S. Maru, 459 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1972).
The voyage of the Santa Leonor commenced at Rio de Janeiro on March 16, 1963. Cargo was loaded at that port and also at Santos, Paranagua and Buenos Aires. The ship arrived at Possession Bay on the Atlantic Ocean entrance to the Straits of Magellan on March 30, 1968 where it took on a pilot assigned to it from a rotation list maintained by the Department of Litoral of the Chilean Navy. The request for the pilot was made to the Director of Litoral by appellee's agent in Valparaiso.
An exception to this rule was spelled out in May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Gesellshaft, 290 U.S. 333, 54 S. Ct. 162, 78 L. Ed. 348 (1933), where the carrier resumed the management of the ship at a subsequent port. Cases which follow May have had some difficulty in determining what constitutes such intervening management and control by the carrier as would destroy the continuity of the voyage. See, e. g., Mississippi Shipping Co. v. Zander & Co., 270 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1959), vacated as moot, 361 U.S. 115, 80 S. Ct. 212, 4 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1959) and Isthmian Steamship Co. v. California Spray-Chemical Corp., 290 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1961).1 However, if any such problem existed in the instant case, it did not seem to concern either counsel or the court below, all of whom apparently concluded that the last voyage of the Santa Leonor began when it left Possession Bay. Cf. The Oritani, 40 F.2d 522 (E.D. Pa. 1929), aff'd 54 F.2d 1075 (3d Cir. 1931). Since the district judge found that the Santa Leonor was seaworthy at that time and since we find his conclusion to be justified, we need not attempt to settle an issue which has not been raised.
When the Santa Leonor took on a single pilot, it was complying with the regulations of the Chilean government. While the scope of appellee's duty was not necessarily measured by the regulations as they then existed, Schlichter v. Port Arthur Towing Co., 288 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 828, 82 S. Ct. 50, 7 L. Ed. 2d 32 (1961), neither was it enlarged nunc pro tunc by subsequent amendments which required two pilots. There was adequate proof of a custom and practice of using only one pilot and expert testimony to justify such usage. Cf. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. v. Compagnie de Navigation, etc., 480 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1973). Indeed, there was testimony that after the Chilean regulations were amended, exemptions from the two-pilot requirements were often granted.
In The Denali, 105 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1939), opinion adhered to on rehearing, 112 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1940), cert. den. 311 U.S. 687, 61 S. Ct. 65, 85 L. Ed. 444 (1940), the court specifically limited the application of 46 U.S.C. § 223 to mates and distinguished it from 46 U.S.C. § 235 which limits the duty of licensed officers to no more than twelve hours of any twenty-four at sea. If standards of conduct are to be established by reference to inapplicable statutes, and we do not suggest this as a proper mode of proof, § 235 would seem to be more pertinent to the facts of the instant case than would § 223.
It must be remembered, also, that the pilot was a man with many years of experience and a reputation for competency who was assigned to the vessel by the Chilean government. In the light of this prima facie showing of training and capacity, appellants were required to show some lack of diligence on the part of appellee in accepting this apparently competent individual. The Buckleigh, 31 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1929), cert. den. 280 U.S. 564, 50 S. Ct. 25, 74 L. Ed. 618 (1929). This they did not do.
This situation is very much like that which existed in The Temple Bar, 45 F. Supp. 608 (D. Md. 1942), aff'd 137 F.2d 293 (4th Cir. 1943), where the court, on a similar state of facts, refused to find a presumption against the carrier because of wire missing from a sounding apparatus. See also President of India v. West Coast Steamship Co., 213 F. Supp. 352 (D.Ore.1962), aff'd 327 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. den. 377 U.S. 924, 84 S. Ct. 1222, 12 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1964).
The district court found that there was simply no way to tell whether the records of the Santa Leonor were removed by appellee, by cohorts of the pilot or by someone else. Without proof of control by appellee, either at the time of trial or when the records disappeared, no inference can be drawn from its failure to produce them. Savard v. Marine Contracting Inc., 471 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. den. 412 U.S. 943, 93 S. Ct. 2778, 37 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1973); Slan v. A/S Det Danske-Franske D/S, 479 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1973).
See also modified opinion, 300 F.2d 41, 49 (9th Cir. 1962)