The Ferro
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1893 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Admiralty - Bill of Lading - Excepted Perils - “Act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master, or mariners in the … management of the ship” - Negligent Stowage of Stevedore - Shipowner's Liability.
The plaintiff shipped a quantity of oranges on board the defendants' vessel, under a bill of lading, excepting (inter alia) “damage from any act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master, or mariners in the navigation or management of the ship.”
The oranges were damaged by the negligent stowage of the stevedore:—
Held, that the defendants were not protected by the exception in the bill of lading, as the stevedore was not included in the list of persons whose acts, &c., were excepted, and the words “management of the ship” did not include improper stowage.
APPEAL by defendants, the owners of the steamship Ferro, against a judgment of the judge of the county court of Glamorganshire, holden at Cardiff, for 121l. 5s. 6d. damages for the depreciation in value of the plaintiff's goods through improper stowage.
The facts — so far as material — were briefly as follows:—
On February 20, 1892, 833 cases of oranges were shipped, at Valencia, on the defendants' steamship Ferro for Liverpool, under a bill of lading, signed by the master, and indorsed to the plaintiff, and which excepted (inter alia) “damage or loss … from any act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master, or mariners in the navigation or management of the ship.”
The plaintiff had no notice, and there was no reference in the bill of lading to the fact, that the vessel, at the time, was under charter; but, by consent, the charterparty, dated November 23, 1891, was put in and read at the trial. It contained the following clause: “The cargo to be … properly stowed by a regular stevedore appointed by charterers or their agents at the risk and expense of the steamer, he being wholly under the direction of the master …”
After the oranges in question had been loaded at Valencia, by a stevedore appointed by the charterers' agent, the vessel went to Almeria, and there took in a large number of boxes of oranges, which were salved goods, in a rotten, broken, and dirty condition, and which were placed by the stevedore, appointed by the charterers' agent, immediately over and resting upon the plaintiff's goods.
On arrival at the port of discharge, it was found that a number of boxes of the plaintiff's oranges were damaged by the rotten state of the oranges taken in at Almeria, and that a number of other boxes were broken and their contents damaged, owing to their having been stowed in such a way that their ends rested on the angle-irons and waterways, and so were kept up, whilst the other ends were subjected to pressure by the rest of the cargo settling down.
At the trial in the county court of Cardiff, the learned judge found “as facts that the plaintiff's goods were, in these particulars, improperly and negligently stowed, and that the stowage at Valencia and Almeria was negligently done by the stevedore employed there”; and the learned judge, in the course of his judgment, said, “The only question of law raised by the defendants was, that they are relieved from liability by the words “any act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master, or mariners in the navigation or management of the ship.” The defendants contend that all the acts which caused the damage were done in the stowage of the cargo, and that the stowage was part of the management of the ship. No authority was cited as to the meaning of the words “management of the ship”; but in Canada Shipping Co. v. British Shipowners' Mutual Protecting AssociationF1 it was decided that bad stowage was not covered by the words “improper navigation,” and Charles, J., in giving judgment, saidF2: “The damage ‘was caused by the act of the plaintiffs (the shipowners) in putting the goods into a ship which had not been effectually cleaned. She was when loaded unfit to receive a cargo of wheat, and, as might have been anticipated, the wheat was spoiled. That this was improper management can scarcely be disputed.’ By an opinion so expressed I am, I think, bound; but … I think it very doubtful if in the present case ‘management’ does include stowage.” The learned judge then referred to the cases of Hayn v. CullifordF3; Sandeman v. ScurrF4; Blakie v. StembridgeF5; The Catherine ChalmersF6; Scrutton on Charterparties, 2nd ed. p. 106, note (h), and held that this case was governed by the two first-mentioned cases, and decided in favour of the plaintiff, on the ground that “the stevedores employed at Valencia an Almeria were so employed by the defendants, and were their servants; that the defendants were liable for the damage done to the plaintiff's goods by the negligence and bad stowage of the stevedores”; and that the “defendants were not relieved under the bill of lading from the liability which they had so incurred.”
On appeal,
Pyke, Q.C., and Bailhache, for the appellants (defendants). The exception in the bill of lading was inserted to protect the shipowner against the cargo owner, and some separate meaning must be given to the word “management” as apart from the word “navigation” of the ship...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. CN Marine Inc. et al., (1989) 104 N.R. 166 (FCA)
...Mines Limited et al. v. Chimo Shipping Limited et al., [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 261 (Que. Adm. Dist.), refd to. [para. 21, Fn. 14]. The "Ferro", [1893] P. 38 (P.D.) (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. The "Glenochil" (1896), P. 10 (P.D.) (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21]. Gosse Millard Limited v. Canadian G......
-
Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine; American Can Company v Canadian Government Merchant Marine
...are sufficient to determine the meaning to be put upon them in the Statute now under discussion. 7 In the year 1893, in the case of the " Ferro" ( 1893, P., p. 38) certain oranges had been damaged by the negligent stowage of the stevedore. It was held by the Divisional Court that the negli......
-
The "Maritime Prudence"
...Laurie v Douglas 15M & W 746 (getting adrift in dock); Good v London Mutual Association (1871) LR 6 CP 563 (open sea-cock); The Ferro [1893] P 38 (negligent stowage by stevedores); The Glenochli [1896] P 10 (pumping though broken pipe); The Rodney [1900] P 112 (clearing pipe with rod); Rows......
-
The "Maritime Prudence"
...Laurie v Douglas 15M & W 746 (getting adrift in dock); Good v London Mutual Association (1871) LR 6 CP 563 (open sea-cock); The Ferro [1893] P 38 (negligent stowage by stevedores); The Glenochli [1896] P 10 (pumping though broken pipe); The Rodney [1900] P 112 (clearing pipe with rod); Rows......