The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law TEVEDORES, cotracting with the agent of a steamship to unload and transport wool in their lighter, who failed to properly protect it from rain, were held to be negligent, in the case of Metcalfe v. Chiarello, 294 Federal Re- porter 29, in proceeding with the work without covers, or without making dili- gent effort to secure covers, when rain threatened, even if the agent failed to supply covers as he had agreed, and in failing to place the cargo on a covered pier where it would be protected, and they were bound to make contribution to the agent ‘who was primarily liable. co Ok “Tt cannot be,” said the court in the case of Malgor, Gonzales & Co. v. Royal Insurance Co., Ltd., 294 Federal Reporter 63, “that, after a wreck, an insurer can take and keep for months, even years, an insurer's goods without being held lia- ble therefore.’ The court further held that it should not. be overlooked that each of the packages of goods involved constituted a single risk, “many of which were perishable, which would, or might, greatly limit the application of the par- ticular average or partial loss exception or warranty in the policy.” or ee When a vessel contracted with a con- struction corporation for repairs, it as- sumed the obligation to keep all parts of the ship under its control reasonably safe for the employes of the said corporation, and it could not relieve itself of this duty by delegating it to the charterer. The charterer was not liable, for failure to clean the deck or remove oil and grease, it was decided in the case of Spo- KANE, 294 Federal Reporter 242, to an employe of the construction corporation repairing the ship under the contract with the owner, the charter vesting in the charterer no possession or custody of the ship, with the rights and obligations incident to a demise of possession. * * * Where a ship was turned over to a stevedore company, neither the ship nor her owner was liable for injuries to an employe of the stevedoring company, where the ship was properly constructed and equipped, though the ship’s officers knew that the hatch into which the stevedoring company was loading coal was left uncovered, said employe hay- ing had full opportunity to see that the cover of the hatch was off.—Koncosan Maru, 292 Federal Reporter 801. * * * A common carrier owes no duty to prospective passengers to examine them and ascertain whether they are free from disease before accepting them as passengers; nor does it owe any duty of care or treatment to passengers who be- come ill, further than to furnish such aid and assistance as they may rea- sonably request of it; mor any ' duty to restrain passengers from leaving its vessel at the completion of the voy- age because their health may be endan- gered thereby. If, however, declared the court in the case of Churchill v. United Fruit Co., 294 Federal Reporter 400, it were apparent that a passenger was mentally incapable of taking care of him- self, the carrier’s duty would be great- Ti . ce ae The rule that when vessels are ap- proaching on crossing courses the one having the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way applies, though the burdened vessel had stopped her engines to await the passing. of a tow across her course, it was held in the case of, Red Star Towing & Trans- portation Co. v. Director General of Rail- roads, 292 Federal Reporter 854. It was held in the, same case that one of two crossing vessels, required by the rules to keep out of the way of the other, was solely in fault for a collision, where the other vessel gave the proper crossing signals and, as required, kept her course and speed, ee ee It was said in the case of RATHLIN Heap, 292 Federal Reporter 867, that it is well settled that wharfage dues, im- posed either under the authority of state laws or municipal ordinances, are not to be considered as tonnage dues, or charges on foreign or interstate com- merce, unless so excessive as to be a burden upon same. Also, that a mari- time lien, enforceable by suit in rem, exists for wharfage, for the time during which the wharf was reserved for the use of the vessel and for part of the time in actual use. * * * Damages for the death of a person caused by a maritime tort are not al- lowed under the general maritime law. Where a remedy has been afforded, it has rested solely upon express statutes.— Bloom v. Furness-Withy & Co., 293 Federal Reporter 98. This was also held to be the law in the case of O’Brien v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 293 Federal Reporter 170, where the court said fur- ther that a right of action for wrongful death, given by the laws of a state, may be enforced in a court of ad- miralty where it arose on _ navigable waters within the territorial jurisdic- tion of the state. ee se In the case of Rotpu, 293 Federal Re- porter 269, it was held: (1) A vessel and her owners are liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in con- 08 sequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship. (2) A seaman, refused by the master proper treatment and care for in- juries received on board, is entitled to compensation in damages from the ship. (3) Unseaworthiness implies, not alone that the vessel be staunch and sound, but that she be properly manned, and the employment of a mate, known to be unfit, constitutes “unseaworthiness”’ as to the seamen under him. (4) A _ ship which employed a mate who was of great size and strength and notoriously brutal to seamen under him was _ liable for injuries to seamen inflicted by the mate. x ok x The loading by the charterer of a ship chartered to carry a specified cargo - with a different cargo is a breach of the charter party, and raises an implied promise by him to pay at least as much as he would pay for the cargo specified in the charter party. It follows, it was decided in the case of American Metal Transport’ Co. v. Rederiakties Dragor, 293 Federal Reporter 817, that where a ship chartered for carriage of a cargo of nitrate of soda, of which she could carry her rating of 600 tons, was loaded by the charterer with general cargo, for which she had space for only 451 tons, the charterer was bound to pay at the charter rate per ton on 600 tons. It is well settled, the court declared, that the master of a vessel has not any au- thority to alter or vary the terms of the charter party. * * * Where a ship has been libeled for col- lision a scond time in a different dis- trict through collusion, for the purpose of enabling the owner to file a petition for limitation of liability in that dis- trict, it will not be permitted to have that effect, though the second libel may be meritofious, but for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the limita- tion proceedings the first libel only will be considered—KaTAuDIN, 293 Federal Reporter 824. * ee A towing company, which because its own tugs were engaged, hired others to tow a steamship to a berth, would be lia- ble for damages to the ship caused by the orders of its tug master, though as to third parties the ship would be liable— W. S. Horsroox, 294 Federal Reporter 908. * * * An action for death of a laborer on navigable waters will not lie under act of congress June 5. 1920, section 33, as that act applies only to those signed as seamen on the ship’s articles or en- gaged in navigation—Young v. Clyde Steamship Co., 294 Federal Reporter 549.