Court Opinion

ID: 9443253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:15:48.34873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:25.602085
License: Public Domain

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur, but for slightly different reasons. I have come finally to agree with Judge Medina that any duty to insure goods, put ashore to permit a ship’s repair pending a general average adjustment, should be regarded as a part of her duty to “load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried”;1 more particularly, as a part of her duty to “care for” them. It would, I think, be most unreasonable to impute to Congress an intent to grant to the breach of such a duty a longer limitation than to the breach of the duty to protect the goods from physical injury. It is of course true that a duty to insure will cover occasions, when the loss results from no failure of the carrier to “care for” the goods; nevertheless, the context of that phrase may enlarge its literal scope and include — when such an added duty exists — indemnifying the owner against all mischances, even those for which he is not at fault. All interpretation is a hazard, and I have been in much doubt; but the foregoing seems to me the most reasonable construction. Since the suit against the United States was therefore brought too late,2 it is not necessary to decide whether the libellant suffered any loss. It was right to dismiss the claim against Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. for another reason as well. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783, 69 S.Ct. 1317, 93 L.Ed. 1692.
I understand that my brethren agree that the one year statute of limitations is applicable but also wish to dispose of the case on the merits.

. § 1303(2), Title 46, U.S.C.A.

. § 1303(6), Title 46, U.S.C.A.