The Role Of Seaworthiness In Shipping

Legislation International Law Essay

Search all our free law essays...
Search

These essays have been written by students for you to use to help you with your
studies. If you need your own custom law essay then we can help....
Get a quote for your own law essay...
Share & Download
Print
Download
Email
Shipping law governs the relations and risks and liabilities borne by two main parties:
The carriers of goods, those who are responsible for the transportation of those goods,
and the shippers who pay the carriers to have their goods transported. The statement
by Chuah provides that a carrier is under an absolute duty to shippers to ensure that a
ship is in a seaworthy condition. Such a duty is said to apply up until the ship set sail,
but ends at the sailing of the ship. This implies that any damage that occurs after a ship
has sailed cannot be considered to be liable or attributed to the carrier. This essay goes
on to analyze such propositions in light of common law rules and Hague-Visby
legislation.
The expression seaworthiness is broadly elucidated by the judges and critics [1] it
doesnt merely mean that the carrier has to provide a seaworthy vessel to fight common
perils of the sea. It was held in Elder, Dempster and Co v Paterson Zochonic and Co.
Ltd [2] the shipowner who agrees to transport goods by sea thus warrants that the ship
will not only be seaworthy in the ordinary sense i.e. It will be tight stanch and tough and
practically is fit to face any threats expected during the voyage but also the ship and the
furniture and all the machinery will be fit to the agreed cargo. [3] In AEReed and Co Ltd
v Page, Son and East [4] , Lord Scrutton LJ claims seaworthiness is applied in two ways
Fitness of the ship to enter on the planned voyage and
Fitness of the ship to receive the agreed cargo as a carrying container
Hence it can be noted that the carrier undergoes two tests of providing seaworthy ship:
A good built up ship which can fight the common threats of the sea.

Cargo Worthiness.
The shipowner is under an implied obligation to provide a fully equipped ship which is
suitable for the carriage of cargo. The ship-owner must provide refrigeration system in
the ship if he is in contract to carry frozen meat, there is an implied warranty that the
ship and the refrigeration is fit to decided voyage. [5] The carrier is also under an
implied obligation to employ adequate and capable crew to control the ship. Valid
certifications to prove the seaworthiness and perfect physical condition of the ship must
be carried in the ship [6]
At the commencement of voyage or each voyage, if the vessel will take one or more
than doctrine of stages [7] the ship must be seaworthy. Does this mean that the carrier
is obligated to provide seaworthy ship only at the beginning of the voyage? If yes then
the carrier will not be responsible if he verifies that seaworthy ship was provided at the
beginning of the voyage.
HagueVisby Rules [8] imposes and holds the carrier accountable before and at the
beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy.
It can be noted that Common law and HVR go hand in hand and concur that carriers
obligation begins when the voyage commences [9] though the obligation in Common
Law is an absolute one. The burden of proving that the ship was unseaworthy is difficult
and hence the carrier can't be held responsible for a long period after the journey begins
and reaches its destination.
The carrier is obligated to provide a seaworthy ship [10] . Only the nature of the duty
varies however the personal integration remains same under common law and the
Hague/ Hague- Visby Rules [11] . The difference between both is, the duty under
common law is absolute while in HVR a duty to apply due diligence is bestowed. If the
HVR doesnt apply, the carrier remains under the absolute duty.
The absolute duty imposed by the common law on the carrier to provide seaworthy ship
though being strict doesnt interpret that the carrier has to make available the faultless
ship. In President of India v. West Coast Steamship Co [12] , it was held that the carrier
should supply a ship that can survive the usual threats of the sea, bearing in mind the
type of water, ship and time of travel etc. The ship should be fit for the purpose of
sailing, only proving that efforts were made to make it seaworthy is not sufficient. Lord
Blackburn alleged in Steel et Al. v The State Line Steamship Company [13] that this
absolute duty means that where there is a contract to carry goods in a ship, whether
that contract is in the shape of a bill of lading, or any other form, there is a duty on the
part of the person who furnishes or supplies that ship, or that ship's room, unless
something be stipulated which should prevent it, that the ship shall be fit for its purpose.
That is generally expressed by saying that it shall be seaworthy [14]
The carrier will be hence exempted from the losses if he has furnished such a vessel
and will clear his obligation, provided he was accountable for violation of his duty to

implement due care for the cargo or in storing the cargo [15] . However in the Kapitan
Sakharov [16] the carrier will be liable for unseaworthy condition of the vessel which
aroused from bad storage, although physically seaworthy and cargo seaworthy ship
was supplied.
Therefore for the protection of the ship, its goods and employees the duty will expand to
guarantee that there is no hazardous cargo on the ship also to ensure that bad storage
will not make the ship unseaworthy. The carrier can however seek exemption by
inserting an appropriate exclusion clause in the contract of carriage to eliminate his
liability for providing an unseaworthy ship although the duty is an absolute one.
US Harter Act 1893 [17] is the pioneer of the duty to exercise due diligence to stabilise
the interest amongst the carriers and the cargo owners. If the cargo owners suffered
any losses or damage it could defend them as at that time the exercise of the duty was
not a positive obligation. HVR [18] later implemented the positive obligation to exercise
due diligence. In The Muncaster Castle [19] a duty to exercise due diligence surpassed
the absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. In the case where rules do not apply
absolute obligation still applies, i.e. Common law still applies to case of Charterparties
except the parties consent. Furthermore it is evident in Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
1971 [20] that there shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea
to which the Rules apply by virtue of this Act any absolute undertaking by the carrier of
the goods to provide a seaworthy ship. [21]
Lord Keith of Avonholm expressed the carrier will have some relief which, weighed in
the scales, is not inconsiderable when contrasted with his previous common law
position. He will be protected against latent defects, in the strict sense, in work done on
his ship, that is to say, defects not due to any negligent workmanship of repairers or
others employed by the repairers, and, as I see it, against defects making for
Unseaworthiness in the ship, however caused, before it became his ship, if this could
not be discovered by him, or competent experts employed by him, by the exercise of
due diligence. [22]
To investigate whether the carrier, or his servants or agents, to man performed due
diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel Lord Justice Auld in The Kapitan
Sakharov [23] instituted an objective test. The standard of due diligence fluctuates as
per the facts, the information accessible during the time of performing duty and
conditions of the case. Due Diligence can be defined as: the efforts of the prudent
carrier to take all reasonable measures that can be possibly taken, in the light of
available knowledge and means at the relevant time, to fulfill his obligation to provide a
seaworthy vessel.
The importance of exercising due diligence arises when the shipowner attempts to use
the exemptions in Art IV r2 of the HVR or to prove his innocence or the exemption
clauses of the contract of carriage [24] , in order to exempt himself from liability if the
vessel commenced its voyage in an unseaworthy condition. Because, if the shipowner

could prove that he exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy [25] then he
will not be responsible if it turns out to be unseaworthy.
On the contrary, when the cargo is loaded it is not enough ship being seaworthy. The
carrier will still be held liable if the ship becomes unseaworthy before sailing and after
the cargo is loaded. [26] According to Chuah the duty takes effect at the time of loading
so far as cargoworthiness' is related. Hence one can anticipate that the ship is fit to
occupy cargo at the moment when it is loaded.
If the duty to provide a seaworthy ship does not extend for the entire voyage it is worth
highlighting, if at the time of sailing the ship was seaworthy and later befalls unfit this will
not be a breach of duty on carriers party to provide seaworthy ship. [27] On the contrary
the carrier will be liable for the loss occurred if the ship was repaired by being
unseaworthy to seaworthy before sailing and the ship turns unfit after it sails. [28]
It will be difficult to maintain the ship if the route of voyage is in different geographical
territories and stages. The condition of ship may fluctuate if the part of journey is
through river, rough sea with high tides and calm sea. This might hamper the condition
of the sea. Hence we need to be clear with the general rule which expects that the
carrier may either make the ship fit for whole journey or make it fit at the beginning of
each stage of the journey
The court was of the opinion in the case of The Vortigem [29] the ship was unseaworthy
because it didnt had sufficient fuel to suffice the journey. The court also observed that it
has become a routine to split long journeys into parts to refill the ship with fuel which is
feasible practice and also obeys the warranty of seaworthiness which is associated at
the beginning of the journey [30]
How appropriate and diligent functioning of the contract and confidence of business
revenue
be secured if doctrine of stages is considered is a puzzle? The legal necessitate of
warranty of seaworthiness is superseded if doctrine of stages are oppressed. This
problem was addressed by the court by ordering the owners to decide acceptable
stages [31] in the case of Northhumbrian Shipping Co v Timm. [32] At the beginning of
the journey the carrier or his agents should plan bunkering stages, if he fails to do he
looses with defence of doctrine of stages and an opportunity to defend himself from
liability.
If the ship is hired under time charter doctrine of stages doesnt apply to every separate
voyage. In this case it is implied warranty if at the beginning of the journey the vessel
was in seaworthy condition for the hired period, the warranty of seaworthiness doesnt
apply at starting of each voyage stage [33] .
In McFadden V Blue Star Line [34] the court alleged it is breach of the warranty of
cargoworthiness if the fault was present before goods were loaded. This action divides

the stages of voyage. The warranty is associated when the goods are loaded to confirm
that ship is seaworthy to accept the goods, it mainly relates to stowage and
cargoworthiness. [35]
AE Reed & Co Ltd v Page, Son & Easn Ltd [36] explicates one major concerns in
doctrine of stages which is pre-sailing operations, the defendants in this case pleaded
that warranty of seaworthiness was not assigned when the ship descended as the
mishap occurred before ship sailed and also they appealed insufficient equipment was
not the cause of damage, the actual cause was overloading. The court ruled out that
factors like accident during shipment, damage unrepaired at beginning of the new stage
and initiating the voyage with same damage comprises unseaworthinesss at the
beginning of the voyage. [37]
It can be analysed from the cases discussed above the significance of doctrine of
stages in duty to furnish a seaworthy ship. A vital modification in the notion of
seaworthiness is offered by bunkering and loading stages.
The carrier is free from obligation to provide a seaworthy ship provided its loaded with
coal for whole journey.
The warranty is expanded and includes action that occurred after the ship sailed. [38]
The Common law presents a noteworthy amendment in the rules [39] which relates to
doctrine of stages. The Rules provide before and at the beginning of the voyage
obligation to exercise due diligence in making the ship sea worthy this Rules sets a
continuous duty from start of the loading up to sailing. [40]
The ship was damaged and the cargo owners had to claim to recover costs in
Makedonia [41] . They alleged due to inadequate bunker the ship was unseaworthy.
However it was observed that the carriers didnt violate Art III (I) and accomplished all
the duties hence were protected from burden. The court observed that the carriers duty
is to perform due diligence in managing appropriate bunkers in immediate port.
Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [42] clarifies the
concept of the time scope of the obligation of Hague-Visby Rule. The court ruled in this
case that nature of duty is continuos and the carrier was compled to perform due
diligence to make rge ship seaworthy during the whole period from starting of the
loading and start of the voyage. The term before and at the beginning of the voyage
indicates the period from no less than beginning of the loading until the ships sails the
court described.
The phrase before the voyage as per the court should not be misunderstood as at the
beginning of the loading it comprises entire stage before sailing.
The rules of shipping do provide that carriers are under several duties to the shipper.
The first of these duties starts in booking a space with the carrier for transportation of

items with a particular vessel. If a shipper has booked such a space in a particular
vessel, and that space is reused, then the shipper is able to claim damages for breach
of contract if the shipper then goes on to refuse to carry the items by the carrier. [43]
In this note however it must be pointed out that the statement that the duty to provide a
seaworthy ship does not apply once the ship has set sail, as stated by Chuah in the
statement above, might not necessarily be seen to be accurate in all circumstances.
The fact is that the common law of bailment requires that when goods are delivered,
they are in the same condition, condition being defined both by quality and by quantity,
as when they received. This implies that the carrier is not simply allowed to state that he
was not under a duty to ensure the seaworthiness of a ship once it has set sail, for if
damage is found to goods then the first person a shipper will look to for the purpose of
attributing liability is the carrier
As such, it is clear that the carrier continues to be under a duty as to the condition of the
ship used to transport the cargo even after a ship has set sail. A distinction can be seen
in the fact that the duty a carrier is under after the ship has set sail is seen to be under a
reasonableness duty rather than the absolute one that previously exists. This
reasonableness duty means that one can take into account the degree of knowledge
that the carrier actually possesses or is considered reasonable to possess given all the
circumstances, and is a much more flexible and subjective duty than the absolute
duty. [44]
Furthermore, it must be noted that a carrier not only bears liability for damage caused to
goods under usual contractual principles and under the laws of bailment, but also under
the laws of negligence. The law of negligence (or the law of tort) provides that a carrier
is considered to be under a duty of care to shippers and must ensure that the goods he
is carrying are transported to the destination adequately. As such, as stated by Chuah, it
may very well be true that the carrier is not required to ensure that the ship is in a
seaworthy state after the ship has sailed to an absolute as extent as it is required to do
before the ship sails. However, the law in tort provides that a relative duty at least
continues. The duty is considered to apply to any of those who have a proprietary or
pessory interest in the goods he is carrying. This means that under negligence, a carrier
is not only liable for any damage caused to the goods to the shipper, but also to the
person who has purchased the goods. This can therefore considered to be another
instance where the provisions of the common law surpass the protections provided for
by the Hague-Visby rules and the liabilities they impose on carriers. [45]
It is apparent from the case law that the burden which rests upon the ship owner to
exercise due diligence to make a ship seaworthy is not a light one. [46]
In conclusion, it can be seen that the questions of what duties a shipper is under with
regards to the seaworthiness of a ship is tied to the question of allocation of risks and
liabilities of damage. The common law rules and the Hague-Visby rules can in fact be
seen to provide for different standards. The common law rules provide that there is an
absolute duty on a ship-owner to ensure the seaworthiness of the ship before the ship

sails, and this absolute duty ends once the ship has sailed. This can be seen to be quite
an extensive duty, and one that imposes quite an onerous burden on any carrier which
is subject to the common law rules. It can be contrasted with the Hague-Visby rules
which provides that there is only required to be a due diligence standard of a carrier with
regards to ensuring the seaworthiness of a ship. This is a more reasonable standard,
but the common law rules have the advantage of ensuring legal certainty as it is always
known who will bear liability for specific damage done matter what event occurs, which
therefore results in less litigation with less associated costs.
However, it must be noted that the matter is not as simple as stating that a shipper is no
longer under an absolute duty once a ship has sent sail. While an absolute duty does
not exist once the ship has sailed, there is still a duty of reasonableness. Thus a carrier
is under a duty to ensure that damage is not caused to goods by the risks posed by
other goods under the laws of contract. He is also deemed to be liable for any goods
that arrive at a port in a different condition to that they were in when they were shipped
unless it can be shown that the damage caused to the goods were from a cause that fell
outside his control under the laws of bailment [47] . Furthermore, under the laws of
negligence, a carrier can be seen to bear liability not only to the shipper of goods but
also the purchaser of those goods indeed the remit of negligence law goes wider than
this and provides that there is a duty of care to anyone who has a proprietary interest in
the goods. Chuahs statement can therefore be seen to be valid but must not be
misunderstood as implying that carriers duties towards shippers with regards to
seaworthiness of ships ends once the ship has set sail. The question of common law
rules is in any case much less important nowadays given that most transactions and
shipping are governed by the Hague-Visby rules rather than the common law rules of
shipping.
A.D. Hughes, (1994) Casebook on Carriage of Goods by Sea, 2nd Edition. Blackstone
Press
Bradgate, R, White, F, (2007) Commercial Law, Oxford University Press
Carr, I, & Stone, P, (2009) International Trade Law, Taylor and Francis.
Hendrikse, M. L., N. H. Margetson, and N. J. Margetson. (2008) Aspects of Maritime
Law: Claims under Bills of Lading. Alphen Aan Den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International
Indira Carr, P Stone (2005) International Trade Law, 3rd Edition, Routledge
Jason Chuah (2009) Law of international trade: cross-border commercial transactions,
Edition 4, Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters.
Jason.C.T. Chuah, (2001) Law of International Trade, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell
John F. Wilson, (2001) Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4th Edition, Longman

John F. Wilson, (2004) Carriage of goods by Sea, , 5th Edition, Longman.

Martin Drockray, (2004) Cases and Material on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 3rd
Edition Cavendish Publishing
McKendrick, E, (2009) Goode on Commercial Law, Penguin Publishing.
Mertin Dockrary (1998) Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea,
Cavendish Publishing Limited
Mustill, J M, (1978) Carriers liabilities and insurance in Grofnors, K, Damages rom
Goods, Gronfors
N.J. Margetson, (2008) The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague Visby
Rules International commercial law series, Uitgeverij Paris
Raoul Colinvaux (1982) Carvers Carriage of Goods by Sea, 13th Edition, London,
Stevens and Sons.
Raoul Colinvaux, (1982) Carvers Carriage by Sea, 13th Edition., Stevens&Sons,
London
Robert Force, A. N. Yiannopoulos, Martin Davies (2006) Admiralty and Maritime Law,
Volume 2, Beard Books
Simon Baughen, (2004) Shipping Law, 3rd Edition., London
Stephen Girvin, (2007)Carriage of good by Sea, , Oxford,
Steward c. Boyd, Andrew S. Burrows, David Foxton, Scrutton (1996) Charterparties and
Bills of Lading, 20th Edition , London
Tetley, William, Brian G. McDonough, and Elliott B. Nixon. (1988) "Chapter 3
Interpretation and Construction of the Rules." Marine Cargo Claims. Montre%u0301al: E
%u0301ditions Y. Blais.
Theophilus Parsons(2004) A treatise on maritime law: including the law of shipping, the
law of marine insurance, and the law and practice of admiralty, The Lawbook Exchange,
Ltd.
Zeller, B (1999) International commercial law for business, Federation Press.

National Legislation:
1924 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (UK)

1936 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (US)

Harter Act
1971 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

Websites and Artilces

White, M., P. Myburn, and C. Forrest, eds. (2004) "MLAANZ." The Maritime Law of
Australia and New Zealand 18
"Case Law on Maritime and Legal Terms | Seaworthiness." Case Law on Maritime and
Legal Terms | A. Web. 7 Jan. 2011.
<http://caselaw4maritimeterms.lawandsea.net/S/Seaworthiness.html>.
"Seaworthy Vessel Cargo | Law Essays UK." Custom Law Essay, Dissertation & Law
Model Answers | Law Essays UK. Web. 8 Jan. 2011. <http://www.law-essaysuk.com/resources/free-essays/seaworthy-vessel-cargo.php>.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, available at
http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/england.carriage.of.goods.by.sea.act.1971/doc.html (last
accessed 06/01/2011).
The Hague-Visby Rules, as amended by Brussels Protocol 1968, available at
http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/sea.carriage.hague.visby.rules.1968/doc.html (last accessed
06/01/2011).
Electronic Library on International Commercial Law and the CISG. 30 Nov. 1999. Web.
9 Jan. 2011. <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/drettmann.html>
"The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Transport Law Project:
An Interim View of a Work in Progress | Legal International Trade Law from
AllBusiness.com." Small Business Advice and Resources from AllBusiness.com. Web. 6
Jan. 2011. <http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/1023535-1.html>.
"LexisLibrary: Sign In." Business Solutions & Software for Legal, Education and
Government LexisNexis. Web. 6 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T10977675596&format=GNBFULL&sort=JUDGMENTDATE,D,H,
$PSEUDOLOSK,A,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T10977675599&cisb=22_T109
77675598&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=274665&docNo=2>.
"Supreme Court of Canada." Http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca. Web. 6 Jan. 2011.
<http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1902/0scr32-379/0scr32-379.html>.

"Interpretation and Construction Of." Scribd. Web. 7 Jan. 2011.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7263264/Interpretation-and-Construction-Of
"The "Asia Star"" Welcome to Singapore Law. Web. 7 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/53562.html>.
http://vig.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/uploads/Wilson_COGBS_C02.pdf
http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/009CHAPTERNINETRADE1.pdf
http://www.pomorci.com/Skole/Pomorsko%20pravo/Liability%20of%20the%20carrier
%20under%20the%20Hague%20(Visby)%20rules.pdf

Read more: The Role Of Seaworthiness In Shipping Legislation International Law Essay
| Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/the-role-ofseaworthiness-in-shipping-legislation-international-law-essay.php#ixzz3G7yhBTSJ
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook