Document: 359 U.S. 297 79 S.Ct. 766 3 L.Ed.2d 820 ROBERT C. HERD & COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner,v.KRAWILL MACHINERY CORPORATION, Kraus Manufacturing Corporation, and Engineering Industries International, S.A. No. 276. Argued Feb. 26, 1959. Decided April 20, Mr. George W. P. Whip, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. William A. Grimes, respondents. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented by this case is whether provisions § 4(5) Carriage Goods Sea Act (46 U.S.C. 1304(5), 46 U.S.C.A. 1304(5)) or parallel an ocean bill lading, limiting liability 'carrier' to a shipper $500 per package cargo, also apply likewise limit negligent stevedore. 2 Respondents, having sold agreed deliver certain goods Spanish company, arranged their carriage on S.S. Castillo Ampudia from Maryland, Valencia, Spain. goods, consisting 62 cases, were transported Detroit flatcar point Baltimore pier alongside there taken incha rge her agent loading shipment. A lading was prepared respondents, forms carrier, submitted signed carrier. value not declared respondents inserted in lading. Petitioner, independent stevedoring orally engaged carrier load cargo aboard ship, while endeavoring one containing press weighing 19 tons, petitioner's employees caused it fall into harbor be extensively damaged. Respondents then brought tort action United States District Court against petitioner recover damages which they alleged had been negligence. Petitioner's answer denied allegations negligence, asserted, alternatively, that if damage its negligence limited limitation-of-liability Act1 lading.2 4 After trial, held negligence; were, express terms, applicable only did nor stevedore;3 entitled full amount (D.C., 145 F.Supp. 554). It accordingly rendered judgment $47,992.04 155 296). On appeal, Appeals unanimously affirmed here presented. Cir., 256 F.2d 946. neither Act4 (Note 1) 2) to, of, therefore liable court expressly disagreed with declined follow majority Fifth Circuit M. Collins Co. v. Panama R. Co., 197 893, saying thought dissenting correct view. being importanceto shipping industry, we granted certiorari resolve conflict. 358 812, 61, 56. 5 contentions are twofold. First, contends liability-limiting should construed as well Second, even those 'carrier,' nevertheless protected carrier's limitation under theory holding case. 6 With regard first contention, look provisions, legislative history environment Act, §§ 1300—1315, next determine Congress shippers evidenced any intention agents 7 clearly phrased. defines term include 'the owner charterer who enters contract shipper.' 1301(a). imposes particularized duties obligations upon, grants stated immunities 'carrier.' 1302, 1303, 1304. Respecting loss says 'neither ship' shall more than package. 1304(5). makes no reference whatever stevedores agents. shows lifted almost bodily Hague Rules 1921, amended Brussels Convention 1924, 51 Stat. 233.5 effort establish uniform bills govern rights liabilities carriers inter se international trade. Ibid. Those do advert debates Committee Reports Senate House upon became mention agents.6 There is, thus, nothing language, impliedly indicates regulate other must assumed knew generally all Yet Congress, (and) ship,' refer 'We can conclude intended make such inroad claimants (against agents) would have said so unambiguous terms' 'in absence clear Congressional policy end, cannot go far.' Brady Roosevelt 317 575, 581, 584, 63 425, 428, 429, 430, 87 L.Ed. 471. 8 We indicate intention, contracting parties 9 now turn second contention if, hold, premise perform part work undertaken carriage, are, reason fact alone, though beneficiaries contract. Applying stevedore, said: 10 'A stevedore unloading, every practical sense, does virtue and, strictly speaking party thereto, own at same time claim provided furtherance terms operations directed.' page 896. 11 unable agree conclusion, think runs counter long-settled line decisions From early has consistently his unless exonerated therefrom, whole part, statute valid binding person In Osborn Bank States, Wheat. 738, 843, 204, 'is responsible act, extent injury (caused thereby).' Reid Fargo, 241 544, 36 712, 60 1156, held, facts very similar here, that, $100, agent, negligence.7 Sloan Shipyards Corporation Shipping Board Emergency Fleet 258 U.S., 567, 42 388, 'agent, because he cease answerable acts.' 580—581, 'The long imbedded law,' 'withdrawal right sue torts result times substantial dilution claimants,' withdrawal 'such ba sic change fundamentals law agency (as) hardly left conjecture.' This several agent's shield 'for conduct harmful plaintiff * constitutional rule exonerates him.' 388; 430. Any law, derogation common construed, '(n)o altering farther words import. making innovation fairly express.' Shaw Railroad 101 557, 565, 25 892; see Texas Pacific Abilene Cotton Oil 204 426, 437, 27 350, 354, 553. Similarly, contracts purporting grant immunity from, beneficiaries, 'are applied alter familiar rules visiting tortfeasor consequences clarity language used expresses understanding parties.' Boston Metals Winding Gulf, 349 122, 123—124, 75 649, 650, 99 933 (concurring opinion). 12 contract, simply performing some thereby contrary above-cited Court.8 13 Petitioner claims position supported decision Lords Elder, Dempster Ltd., Paterson, Zochonis (1924) A.C. 522, 18 Li.L.Rep. 319. There, chartered charter, shipowners. company shipped number casks palm oil ship West African ports England. crushed negligently laid over them, large lost. contained clause which, far pertinent, shipowners arising stowage. *' sued both principal unseaworthiness (which within exemption clause) bad stowage clause). decided due but differing reasons, 14 careful reading lengthy opinions lordships discloses provision limits beneficiary involved Nor English ever limites applies agent. See Scrutton, Charterparties (16th ed. 1955), 286—287, note (g). true Gilbert Stokes Kerr, Prop., Dalgety 81 Ll.L.Rep. 337 (1948), Waters Trading (1951) 385, Supreme New South Wales stevedores, performed given However, Wilson Darling Island Stevedoring Lighterage (1956) 346, Argus Law Rep. 311, 29 Austral. L.J. 740—an appeal involving indistinguishable two prosecuted avowed purpose challenging correctness decisions—the High Australia, after reviewing many decisions, found mentioned, tht t hey wrongly overruled saying: 15 complete stranger concern not, or, what terms. He shipowner nobody else, handles nowhere else. authority bind consignee my opinion, principle law—deducible Elder Case case—which compels inference between If soaks water ruins it, I find save him normal tort.' Opinion Fullager, J., Austral.L.J., 751. 16 Under Court, law. No liability, hence follows common-law way limited, below affirmed. 17 Affirmed. appear provides: (5) 'Neither event become connection transportation exceeding lawful money nature before shipment lading.' 30 37 thereof provide: '30. consideration choice freight rates offered Carrier, actual deemed Carrier's any, determined basis higher writing delivery Carrier noted face hereof payment extra charge incident thereto made promised *, value, less, computing partial adjusted pro rata. '37. effect subject U.S.A. set forth Act.' 1301(e), 1301(e) 'carriage goods' covers period when loaded discharged ship.' district judge view casualty occurred 'loaded on' effective begun. inasmuch purports need review Note 3. turn, based pioneering Harter 1893, 445, 190—196, 190—196. H.R.Rep. 2218, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. 7. S.Rep. 742, 1st Sess.; Looking they, like 1304(5) history, Instead deal 'Carrier's liability' shippers. They say package.' presumed expressed Since so, 'not cut off (respondent's) remedy wrongful act.' 549, 568, 386, 66 762. Though facts, considered alone dispositive enough specifically raised, actually decided, invoke hill seen respondents' argument members Bar understood hold entitled, challenged reported American during years 1916 1952. Apart disapproving (145 554) (4 946) case, cited three present context, twice approvingly once disapprovingly seven somewhat different contexts. Ford Motor Jarka Corp., Mun.Ct.N.Y., 134 N.Y.S.2d 52, where court, relying 337, covenant However cases relied recently Australia Austral.L.J. 740. Autobuses Modernos, Federal Mariner, D.C.E.D.Pa., 125 780. citing Collins, whose joined cause caro w benefits International Milling Perseus, D.C.E.D.Mich., (1958) A.M.C. 526. master 'unable reasoning case.' 529. contexts Star, 210 44; J. B. Effenson Three Bays 238 611; Twentieth Century Delivery Service, St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. 242 292; Van Camp Food Pacific-Atlantic 122 163; Chutter KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 132 National Federation Coffee Growers Columbia Isbrandtsen (1957) 1571 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.); Berger 34th Street Garage, N.Y.2d 701, 171 824, 148 N.E.2d 883.

Category: 7