Case Name: Van Horn v. Taylor et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1847-05
Citations: 2 La. Ann. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: Van Horn v. Taylor et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 587–589

Head Matter:
Van Horn v. Taylor et al.
Ehe owners of a steamer will not bo liable for the value of goods shipped under a bill of lading containing the exception of " unavoidable accidents and dangers of the river,” and lost in consequence of a collision with another boat, where there was no .fault or carelessness on •the part of those who had charge of the steamer on which the goods-were shipped, and it was not in their power to prevent the collision. Such a less is -the result of .an unavoidable accident, or danger of the river, within the meaning of .the bill oflading.
Where goods, stored on the deck of a steamer, to the knowledge of the shipper, who was a passenger, and without objection on his part, are lost overboard, inconsequence of a collision with another boat, occurring without any faulton thepart .of those in charge of the steamer on which they were shipped, the shipper cannot recover their value from the owners of the steamer on which they were shipped, on the ground that they were lost from having been •improperly stowed-on deek, instead of in the hold.
APPEAL from the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J, The defendants appealed from a judgment in favor .of the plaintiff.
T. A. Clarke, for the plaintiff.
The exception in the bill of lading is of “ unavoidable accidents and dangers of the river.'” The adjective “unavoidable” qualifies the word “dangers,” as well as “ accidents,” and has invariably been interpreted in this connection, to mean such overpowering force as is produced by superhuman agency, and which human effort could not prevent. If, then, the cause of ihe accident was the mismanagement of the Emperor, it was not the result of vis major. This interpretation of the clause in bills of lading for transportation upon the western waters, has been adopted in two cases by the courts of Tennessee, viz.: Oordohv. Buchanan, 5 Yerg. Rep. 71, and Turney v. Wilson, 7 Yerg. Rep. 340. “ If goods are injured by the wanton or careless collision of boats, the carrjer is liable tp the shipper, and must seek his remedy from the aggressor.” Wright’s Ohio Rep. 193. Whatever may be the doctrine in rplgtion to marine collisions — whether, as relates to the mutua Lights of freighter and .carrier, the carrier is responsible or not, where the bill of lading .contains tlje exception “ dangers pf the sea,” and the .collision was not the result pf his negligence — we contend that .principles of public policy require in river navigation tljat the carrier should .be held njor.e strictly responsible. The reasoning in th,© cas.es pf Trent Nav. Cp. ,v. Wppd, 3 Esp., 127, and ¿forward v, Pitlard, l Ternj. 27, here appjies,
C. M. Randall, for the appellants.
The tobac.co shipped pn the defendants’ steamey was well stowed. Abbot on Shipping, new ed. p. 423, note 2. 4 La. 211. Collisions are dangers of the river, within the exception of the bill of lading ; and where they o.ccur without fault .on the part of those in .charge of one pf the vessels, they are, as to thp owners of that vessel, “ unayoidable accidents,” for which they .cannot be made liable- ,C. C. 2725. 3 Stewart and Porter, 176. The case .cifced from Wright's Ohio Reports, 19.3, Is not law- It h U solitary case, unsupported by re.asop .or principle.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court w.as pronounced by
Slidell, J.
This is pn action by a shipper, tp recover from the .owners of the steamer George .C.olliep thp value of .certain goods shipped und.er a bill of Jading containing t}je exception of " unavoidable appidents and dangers of the river." The defence is, that tlje goods Vjr.ere forp.ed overbo.ard jn .a .collision with an.otlipr stpampr, which .collision was caused by the fault of the other steanir ,er. This .cause has been already before the Supreme Coqrtt.and was remanded for a new tria}. See 7 Robinson, 201. It w?s then said by the .court, and in fhat opinion we concur, " that if there was no faujt .or carelessness pn .the part pf those wh.p had charge of the George Colli,er, apd jt was out of their power fo have pr.eyepted th.e collision, we can see no gpod reason why it should not be .considered as an unayoidable accident, .¡and ras .o.np ,pf th.e dangers,of flap rivey yvithin the meaning of the bill of Jading."
We have .carefully examined the .testimony in .this .canse, ¡and while, on the .one hand, we djs.cpyer gross negligence, and something approaching e.yen to wanton and malicious pondupt, on th.e part pf those in charge of the other beat, we find ¡nothing in th.e py.idpncp which would justify us in attributing th,e pojlision in .any degree tp fije faujt pr negjigenpp of th.e defendants' officers of crew. The pbligation of thp shipowner j.s a stringent ,on,e; ,a,nd the interests of commerce, pnd the safety of human Jife, require that wh should .enforce ljgidjy the performance pf their duty by the officers of vessejs, for whom th.e ownprs arp responsible, They .are bo.und to ponstant vigilance, and if a case presents itself in which tljere is eyeij sjight fiiult, we should hold the pwners answerable to the shipper. Ip the present pas.e no faujt whatever is .attributable t,o th.e .d.efendr pnts' officpj's and .crew-
It is said that the pjniptiff's goods wepp improperly stowed pn deck; that th.e fleck Joad only was thrown oyprboard by the collision, the .carge jn .the hold nof being jnjjjr,ed. The gpods w.ere thus lad.en with .the knowledge and implied approbation of .the plaintiff. Lie was a passenger on boar.d the steamer, and does not appear to liave made any objection to the goods being thus carried, jthough fhe .collision occurred several days .after fjie steamer commenced her yoyage. M.oreover, jt appears by testimony, that merchandise of that sort i§ often carried on deck, and that underwriters do not charge a higher premium on such merchandise, carried in that way, it beinghowever considered the duty of the master to protect it from the weather.
It is therefore decreed that the judgment ,of the court below be reversed, and that there be judgment for the defendants, with costs in both courts.
fhe merchandise shipped was tobacco in hogsheads, R,