Source: http://www.flashcardexchange.com/cards/admiraltymaritime-law-544839
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 17:56:52
Document Index: 630329588

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 1300', '§ 1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§80113', '§1303', '§1303', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304']

Admiralty/Maritime Law Flashcards - Flashcard Exchange
Admiralty I 2010 Force Admiralty Estelle Braaf Midterm Business Law Pe... Texas Family Law Some Random Law Questions for IL Bar Con Law Final Some Random Law Questions for IL Bar Texas Family Law Business law test 2 CH 5 set 2 Business Law 1 - Part 1 6. Common Law Homicide Criminal Law - Arkansas Distinctions Law - CSA exam I 2008 Constitutional Law II- 2nd half Criminal Law - CA BAR FEB 2009 Consumer Law: Texas Debt Collection Act Contracts Law - MBE - Texas Bar Exam ... Consumer Law (2010 Texas Bar) Family Law / Community Property - 201... Constitutional Law Flashcards » Admiralty/Maritime Law Admiralty/Maritime Law
Dec 2007 Subjects: admiralty law maritime tulane Hated It
HARTER ACT (§ 46 USC 190, et seq.)
Application? (a) K’s of carriage from or between ports of the US and inland water carriage under BOL’s.
(b) Does not cover shipments entering US from foreign ports;
(c) Applies outside the tackle to tackle period. HARTER ACT (§ 46 USC 190, et seq.)
Duration? (a) Provisions are in effect from the time when the carrier receives the goods until the goods are properly delivered. This is a longer time than just when goods are loaded on and off the vessel. HARTER ACT
(§ 46 USC 190, et seq.)
Proper delivery? Proper delivery occurs when carrier or its agent:
(i) discharges cargo onto a fit wharf;
(ii) segregates by bill of lading and count;
(iii) makes accessible to consignee, and
(iv) consignee has reasonable opportunity to take possession of cargo. HARTER ACT
Exculpation- 3 main points? (a) CR can't relieve itself for negli. or fault in proper loading, stowage, custody, care and delivery of cargo.
(b) CR can't relieve himself from exercising due diligence in properly equipping the vessel and providing a seaworthy vessel.
(c) CR is exonerated in certain circumstances IF the carrier exercised due diligence and properly manned and equipped the vessel. HARTER ACT
CR cannot relieve itself of liability for negligence or fault... Section 1: prohibits any exculpation clause in a BoL or shipping document relieving the CR from liability arising out of negligence or fault in proper loading, stowage, custody, care and delivery of cargo. HARTER ACT
CR cannot relieve itself from due diligence/seaworthiness Section 2: prohibits any exculpation clause whereby the CR may relieve himself from exercising due diligence in properly equipping the vessel and providing a seaworthy vessel. HARTER ACT
CR is exonerated IF due diligence/properly manned & equipped the vessel when... Section 3: provides for exoneration of the CR in certain circumstances IF the carrier exercised due diligence and properly manned and equipped the vessel:
(i) NOT liable for damage/ loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation of the vessel;
(ii) NOT liable for errors in management of the vessel;
(iii) NOT liable for losses arising from:
- dangers of the sea;
- acts of God;
- acts of public enemies;
- inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods;
- insufficiency of packaging;
- seizure under the legal process;
- any act/omission of the SH or OW;
- saving or attempting to save the goods at sea. COGSA
(46 USC § 1300, et seq.)
Generally? 1. Incorporated Hague rules into US law.
(a) Purpose was to achieve int'l uniformity & to redress the edge in bargaining power enjoyed by CRs over SHs and cargo interests by setting out certain duties & respons'ties of CR that can't be avoided- even by express contractual provision.
(b) Very Pro-CR Statute! COGSA
3 imp. Definitions? (1) “CR” may be vessel, owner or charterer (or multiple parties)
(2) “K of Carriage”: applies only to this particular shipment evidenced by a BoL.
(3) “Good” is anything carried other than live animals. COGSA
Application? Applies to all K’s for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the US in foreign trade. (1)Tackle to Tackle
(2)All other countries: apply only to outgoing cargo.
(3)“K of carriage” is a prereq. for COGSA to apply; may be a BoL or any similar document of title which is evidence of a K of carriage.
(3)If the BoL is intended as a mere receipt, COGSA will not apply between the parties.
(4)K’s of carriage b/w ports of the US & inland water carriage under BoL’s are governed by Harter (However, parties may expressly incorp. COGSA to apply).
(5) COGSA trumps any contrary terms of BoL. COGSA
Tackle to Tackle Tackle to Tackle.(COGSA 2000): from time received by CR to delivery:
(i) for chute, this is when it hits the ship’s end of the chute; (ii)with liquids, when ship’s pipe connects with phlange;
(iii) on gangplank, when over hull. COGSA: Responsibilities & Liabilities of CR & Ship (46 USC § 1303)
6 points to remember... 1. due diligence to make ship seaworthy, properly man, & able to recieve cargo at the beginning (not an absolute duty)
2. Continuous duty to cargo.
3. Proper BoL
4.is prima facie evidence of the receipt of the CR of the goods.
5. 1 yr. stat. of limits. 6. no exoneration clauses allowed. Responsibilities and Liabilities of Carrier & Ship (§1303)
due diligence Carrier must exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage, to:
(i) make the ship seaworthy;
(ii) properly man, equip, and supply the ship;
(iii) make ship fit and safe for the receipt, carriage and preservation of the goods. Is the COGSA duty to make the ship seaworthy absolute? NO. There is no absolute duty to make vessel seaworthy--only applies “before and at the beginning of the voyage.” HARTER v. COGSA
The 2 acts are functionally the same except for 3 points: 1.Harter denies exoneration for errors in navig'n and management if there has been any failure to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel, even if this isn't the cause of the loss. COGSA req's some causal connection between the error &the loss, i.e. doesn't req. CR to 1st show that it exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy as a predicate for asserting a defense.
2. Harter has no statute of limitations;
3. Harter does not provide a limit if liability for loss or damage to cargo. VISBY AMENDMENTS (1968)
Generally.. 1. Liability Limitation
(a) Increased the value limit.
(b) adjusted the £100 per package of the Hague Rules to 30 franks Poincare per kilo ($.o9 US per pound).
(c) However, in 1979, an IMF unit (SDR-Special Drawing Right) was adopted with a daily fluctuating value using a basket of currencies as the base computation (approximately 666.67 SDR’s or 2 SDR’s per kilo). VISBY AMENDMENTS (1968)
Application (a) Most countries have adopted, but the US HAS NOT ADOPTED!!
(b) COGSA 2000: Will adopt Visby. JCB SALES v. WALLENIUS LINES
ISSUE: What law governed the DFR? (COGSA? Visby?); Did the parties intend to apply the higher limit under the Hague Rules? Damage to a machine being shipped;was no BoL, only a data freight receipt,(not a document of title); parties agreed that Hague would govern the doc.
HOLDING: COGSA was N/A because the DFR was not a doc. of title. COGSA only applies to BoL’s and other similar docs of title.
However, in this case, it did not matter whether the DFR is covered by COGSA b/c even if Visby (US hasn't adopted)is applied here-it doesn't offend COGSA because COGSA allows an increase in liability, but not decrease. SHIPPER’S PRIMA FACIE CASE (PING PONG GAME) A SH who wishes to make a cargo claim against a CR must make a prima facie case that the goods were damaged while in the CR’s custody. Plaintiff is not required to show fault or negligence to explain how the damage occurred. Plaintiff may meet its burden by showing.... (1)Good Order - Bad Order: the goods were delivered to CR in good condition (clean BoL) and the goods were damaged when they were delivered to the SH/consignee, OR
(2) How/When Damage: Evidence tending to prove that the damage occurred while in custody of carrier (i.e. sea water) Clean Bill of Lading One w/out exceptions as to the condition of the goods. (i.e. states that the goods are in apparent good order and condition).
(i)Creates a presumption of delivery in good condition. Constitutes the SH’s prima facie case and the CR may be estopped from denying the accuracy of the statements in the BoL. When is the rule that a clean BoL constitutes a shipper's prima facie case not applicable? Rule N/A when the SH gives goods to CR in packages that would have prevented CR from observing the damaged condition. Claused Bill of Lading states that the goods looks like it’s damaged. Does NOT establish a PF case. Really n/a because no one would buy a claused BoL. Burden Shifting: Ping Pong Game 1. SH fails to meet his PF: Action dismissed.
2. Burden met: CR may escape liability by proving that he exercised due diligence to prevent the damage OR is exempt under an exception clause delineated in COGSA.
3. CR meets this burden: SH may still recover if he can show that the negli. of the CR was a CONCURRENT cause of the loss. 4. SH shows this: Burden then shifts to the CR to prove the part of the loss that was caused by the excepted clause (VERY DIFFICULT).
5.If CR can't do this, he is liable for the entire loss. Burden Shifting: Ping Pong Game
How can a SH still recover if the CR met burden of showing he exercised due diligence/is exempt a under COGSA clause? Third step in ping pong: SH may still recover if he can show that the negli. of the CR was a concurrent cause of the loss. Shown by evidencing that carrier:
(1) did not exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy (§1303(1));
(2) did not use DD in caring for the goods (§1303) Prima Facie Case: Internal/Non-observable Damage Even if the shipper fails to demonstrate that the goods were delivered in good condition as described in the BoL, he may nevertheless demonstrate a PF case by introducing further evidence consisting:
(i) of the inspection certificate or other testimony relating to the actual condition of the goods, OR
(ii) showing that the nature of the damage is such that it could have occurred only while in the custody of the CR. CAEMINT FOOD v. BRASILEIRO Corned beef was damaged by water. Could have gotten damaged by rain (loading) or by “sweating” - ventilation.
HELD: No prima facie case.A CR can only give you a clean BoL for externally observable goods. Cans, loaded in boxes, were in apparent good order & condition. B/c P failed to meet the burden, D was not req. to demonstrate the shifting burden. COGSA: Presumption of Good Delivery (§1303(6)) Delivery of the goods to the proper person is PF evidence of the delivery of the goods under the BoL, UNLESS:
(1) NOTICE (w/in 3 days) of the loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage is given in WRITING to the CR/his agent @ the port of discharge BEFORE or AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL.
(2) However, this deprives SH’s PF case of its effect. POMERENE BILLS OF LADING ACT (§80113) (a): CR issuing a BoL is liable for non-receipt of any part of the goods described in the BoL by the date shown.
(b): Common CR is not liable:
(i) when goods are loaded by SH(SH must show proper loading)
(ii) when the BoL:(1) describes goods in terms of marks or labels or in a statement about king, quantity or condition; or (2) is qualified by “contents of packages unknown,” “said to contain,” or “shipper’s weight, load, and count.”
(iii) to the extent CR does not know whether any part of the goods were received or conform to the descrip. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CARRIER
DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SHIP SEAWORTHY (§1303(1)(a)) A vessel is unseaworthy when it is not reasonably fit to carry this cargo on this voyage. -very relative term (i.e. can’t put oil in a container vessel). -Does not req.the perfection of the vessel. -It is a NONDELAGABLE DUTY!!! VISBY AMENDMENTS (1968)
DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SHIP SEAWORTHY (§1303(1)(a)) A vessel is unseaworthy when it is not reasonably fit to carry this cargo on this voyage. -very relative term (i.e. can’t put oil in a container vessel). -Does not req.the perfection of the vessel. -It is a NONDELAGABLE DUTY!!! RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CR:
Due Diligence to Make the Ship Seaworthy: Factors to Consider (a) voyage undertaken
(b) cargo carried
(c) stowage RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CR:
COGSA Due Diligence to Make the Ship Seaworthy: Applies? Duty operates before and at the beginning of the voyage, including during loading. Examples of possible unseaworthiness? (a) fault in vessel’s construction or equipment;
(b) error by master or crew while the vessel is underway if the crew member was not qualified or inadequately trained;
(c) improper loading or stowage;
(d) a condition on the vessel likely to be damaged in a storm;
(e) faulty or inadequate navigation devices or charts;
(f) improper cleaning of tanks or input lines. US v. ULTRAMAR SHIPPING HELD: Vessel was unseaworthy because the cargo was stowed improperly (i.e. did not have proper shifting boards). Court also held that not having the part. navigation instrument does not in itself make the vessel unseaworthy because the vessel had newer, more advanced navigational equipment. The absence of a fathometer did not cause the damage. Responsibilities of the CR
HARTER ACT v. COGSA: Due Diligence & Burden of Proof HARTER: CR’s duty of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before the beginning of the voyage is a prereq. to its enjoyment of Harter’s exceptions. If he has breached this duty: all defenses go out the window regardless of any CAUSAL connection! COGSA: Nondelegable. Reqs. a causal connection (§1304(1)):
(1) Must show lack of due diligence AND causation.
(2) Burden is on the CR or other party claiming exemption. If SH meets his PF case, CR must show either:
(a) absence of causation OR
(b) exercise of due diligence. Responsibilities of the CR
HARTER ACT v. COGSA: Availability of Defenses COGSA: To be liable for unseaworthiness under COGSA, P must prove lack of due diligence .
HARTER: CR can't claim a defense unless he has 1st est. that he exercised due diligence. Defense Against Unseaworthiness (a) CR must show he exercised due diligence to avoid liability.
(b) Show unseaworthy condition arose after voyage started;
(c) Show latent condition that due diligent inspection would not have revealed. RESTRAINT OF PRINCES (§1304(2)(g)) Covers “forcible interference with the voyage or adventure at the hands of the constituted govt. whether done by it as an enemy of the state to which the ship belongs or not. US STEEL INT’L v. M.T. GRANHEIM Fragile chemical shipped with clean BoL, and is found to have discoloration when off-loaded.
HELD--> Inherent Vice: It appears that the damage rose internally, it self-evidently calls into question the good condition of the goods upon shipment…any existing defect, disease, decay, or the inherent nature of the commodity which would cause it to deteriorate over a lapse of time. INHERENT VICE (§1304(2)(m)) Covers loss or deterioration of cargo because of some internal characteristic, defect, or inherent quality of the goods.
Theory is that the SH & not the CR should have known of the inherent characteristics of the good and should have the responsibility to guard against it. INHERENT VICE (§1304(2)(m))
Examples.. (i) insect eggs;
(ii) tendency of metal to rust;
(iii) tendency of fishmeal to generate heat. INHERENT VICE (§1304(2)(m))
Burden of Proof: 2d. Cir. (Granheim) CR need only prove that the damage was of an internal origin, and the burden shifts back to the SH to show the condition of the goods when shipped and the defect was not internal origin. INHERENT VICE (§1304(2)(m))
Burden of Proof: 5th Cir. (Quaker Oats) CR must shoulder the burden of proving inherent vice. CR must show some defect adhering to the individual cargo in question. Not enough to show that this type of cargo are susceptible to inherent vice. Burden then shifts back to SH to show negligence or fault of the carrier. MONICA TEXTILE CORP. v. SS TANA
ISSUE: What is a “package” under COGSA? CONTAINER CASES: If the BoL says “package,” the contents of the container are COGSA packages, not the container itself. This is usually determinative. The container may, however, be a COGSA package if there is a clear agreement by the parties so long as the contents & the number of packages or units inside are disclosed. What is a "package"under COGSA? TEST: (PER SE CONTAINER RULE) MITSU Notwithstanding the insertion in the number-of-packages column(s) of the BoL of a number reflecting the number of containers, where the BoL discloses on its face what is inside the container(s) and those contents may reasonably be considered COGSA packages, the latter, not the container(s) are the COGSA packages. Ready to get started?