Macnamara v Owners of s.s. "Hatteras"

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1931
• Date: 26 November 1931
• Docket Number: (1930. No. 28.)
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Macnamara v. Owners of the s.s. "Hatteras"

MICHAEL MACNAMARA & SON

Plaintiffs

and

THE OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP "HATTERAS

"Defendants.

(1930. No. 28.)

Shipping - Bill of lading - Exceptions - Limitation of liability - Construction - Harter Act - Loss arising from "negligence, fault, or failure in proper loading or stowage" - Negligence on the part of the vessel -"Faults or errors in the management of the vessel" - Faulty stowage.

Defendants, who were shipowners, by two bills of lading (which were similar) agreed to carry certain hogsheads of leaf tobacco from the port of Norfolk, U.S.A., to the port of Dublin, and there to deliver same to the plaintiffs in good order and condition. The bills of lading stated that the shipments were subject to all the terms and provisions of, and all the exemptions from liability contained in, the Harter Act, an Act of Congress of the United States, which by sect. 1 makes it unlawful for the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property from or between ports of the United States and foreign ports to insert in any bill of lading any clause whereby he is relieved from liability for loss or damage "arising from negligence, fault, or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery" of merchandise committed to his charge, and makes null and void and of no effect all clauses of such import inserted in bills of lading. Each of the bills of lading provided that neither the vessel, her owner, nor agent should be liable for loss or damage resulting from (inter alia.) inherent vice, nature, or defect in the goods, and that, "except when caused by negligence on the part of the vessel," neither the vessel, her owner, nor agent should be liable for loss or damage resulting from (inter alia.) taint from any other goods, or vermin. It was admitted: (1) that the hogsheads of tobacco had been delivered to the defendants in good order and condition, and were so shipped, but that on arrival at the port of Dublin they were found to be damaged by vermin, which had penetrated into the hogsheads during the voyage; (2) that certain bales of rabbit skins had also been shipped and had been stowed in the same part of the vessel as the hogsheads of tobacco, and were on arrival at Dublin found to contain vermin of the same species; and (3) that the vermin were not due to, or caused by, anything inherent in the hogsheads of tobacco, but came from the rabbit skins. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages for breach of contract contained in the bills of lading, and, alternatively, for negligence. The defendants relied on the clause in the bills of lading exempting them from liability for loss or damage resulting from vermin except when caused by negligence on the part of the vessel. Both parties concurred in stating two questions of law in the form of a Special Case for the opinion of the Court, and, in answer thereto:

Held that, since sect 1 of the Harter Act prohibited clauses which relieved shipowners from liability for loss or damage arising from "negligence, fault, or failure in proper loading, stowage," etc. and the clause in the bills of lading relieved the defendants from liability except when caused by "negligence on the part of the vessel," merely, the clause attempted to exempt the defendants from liability in certain cases in which such exemption was prohibited, and accordingly was null and void, and the defendants were liable for the damage caused by the vermin, notwithstanding the absence of negligence on the part of the defendants; but this decision was to be without prejudice to any other defence to the action that might be raised.

Held also that the defendants were not exempt from liability by virtue of sect. 3 of the Harter Act either, which relieves a shipowner from responsibility for damage or loss resulting from "faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel," since there was no fault or error in navigation, and faulty stowage was not a fault or error in the management of the vessel.

Trial of Action.

The action was commenced by plenary summons. whereby the plaintiffs claimed £2,483 5s. 4d. (reduced by credits in the statement of claim to £1,686 15s. 4d.) as damages for breaches by the defendants of contracts contained in two bills of lading, or, alternatively, for damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the negligence of the defendants, their servants, or agents in and about the loading, stowage, and carriage of the goods (69 hogsheads of leaf tobacco) mentioned in the said bills of lading.

Each of the bills of lading stated that the goods specified therein were received in apparent good order and condition to be transported from the port of Norfolk, Va., to be delivered in the like good order and condition at the port of Dublin, unto shipper's order, or to his or their assigns, on payment of freight and charges thereon and upon the following terms and conditions:"Neither the vessel, her owner, nor agent shall be liable for loss or damage resulting from: Act of God; perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea, or other navigable waters; fire, from any cause or wheresoever occurring; barratry of master or crew; enemies, pirates, or robbers; arrest or restraint of princes, rulers, or people, or seizure under legal process; fumigation under governmental orders; riots, strikes, lock-outs, or stoppage of labour; saving or attempting to save life or property at sea; inherent vice, nature, defect, or change of character in the goods, insufficiency or absence of marks, numbers, address, or description; explosion, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts; or any latent defects in hull, machinery, or appurtenances, or unseaworthiness of the vessel, whether existing at the time of shipment or at the beginning of the voyage, provided the owners shall have exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, properly manned, equipped, and supplied. Except when caused by negligence on the part of the vessel, neither the vessel, her owner, nor agent shall be liable for loss or damage resulting from: heat, frost, decay, putrefaction, rust, sweat, breakage, leakage, smell, taint, or evaporation from any other goods, drainage, ullage, vermin, or by explosion of any of the goods, whether shipped with or without disclosure of their nature; nor for risk of craft, hulk, or trans-shipment, nor for any loss or damage caused by the prolongation of the voyage.

. . . . . . . . . .

"1. This shipment is subject to all the terms and provisions of, and all the exemptions from liability contained in, the Act of Congress of the United States, approved on the 13th day of February, 1893, and entitled 'An Act relating to the navigation of vessels, etc.' (1). This shipment is subject to the provisions

of sects. 4281-4286, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States . . . ."

[Conditions Nos. 2 to 9 here followed, the material portions of which are referred to in the pleadings.]

"10. Unless caused by vessel's negligence in handling, loading, stowing, and/or discharging goods, vessel shall not be liable for damage to [certain specified articles, etc.]. Unless required as result of vessel's negligence, re-packing, re-coopering, and reconditioning shall be done at the expense of the goods."

[Conditions 11 to 19 followed, the material portions of which are referred to in the pleadings.]

With the view of avoiding expense the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to state the facts in the form of a Special...