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

EE EI SEE ES eee NE Me Pe ONY Rees See Pee ee aT o RSI NSIS Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law Specially Compiled for Marine Review HE employment of a seaman in- T cludes not only the performance of the physical tasks required of him, but also includes the performance of such ordinary tasks for his own com- fort and convenience as are incident. to and necessarily connected with the employment. In _ performing such tasks, it was decided in the case of States Steamship Co. v. Berglann, 41 F. (2d) 456, a seaman assumes all of the ordinary risks of his employment, but, because he cannot quit the ship nor control the actions or orders of the ship’s officers, he does not assume the risks of negligent acts of those in charge of the ship whereby his place of work as a seaman is made unsafe; nor does he assume the risk of failure of those in charge of the ship to take such precautions as the perils of the sea May render necessary and reason- able. *% * * HERE is no question that seamen, though favored by the law and re- garded as wards in admiralty, are capable of making releases for mari- time injuries, yet in making such re- leases their rights are tenderly guard- ed and their acts, when waiving or yielding their rights, are carefully scrutinized.—W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining & Molasses Co. v. Stoffel, 41 F. (2d) 651. * Y VIRTUE of his office and the rules of maritime law, it is the master’s duty to select and station his crew. The owner of a vessel who properly delegated to the master the duty of dividing watches on the vessel was not at fault for failure to inter- fere, unless violation of instructions was unknown. Where the owner has properly delegated duties with respect to the vessel’s management to a com- petent person, something more is re- quired in establishing knowledge and privity as to violations of statutes or regulations than mere negligence as to discovering whether or not those duties have been properly carried out; some degree of actual knowledge or participation must be brought home to the owners.—American-Hawaiian Steamship Co. v. Pacific Steamship Co., 41. F. (2d). 718. * * * - NDER our law, it was said in the case of ANDREE, 41 F.. (2d) 812, a maritime lien which attaches to a ship will be preferentially recognized in the distribution of the funds result- ing from recovery for the loss of a ship by collision or otherwise. It must be remembered, however, it was de- clared, that a maritime lien is mere- ly a security for a maritime claim, 46 and its real value to its possessor de- pends on the value of the res or its substitute when the lien comes to be foreclosed. * * MARITIME adventure is a mul- tipartite relationship which is comparable, in a sense, to a partner- ship between the interests involved. The law of general average, when the contingency arises on which it can properly be invoked, is the partner- ship law of the adventure, and con- cerns itself, not with the claims for damage to the adventurer by out- siders, but wholly with the equitable adjustment, under its rules, of the rights and liabilities inter sese of the partners to the adventure. It gov- erns the domestic relations of the adventure, and to import into it, for any purpose, claims against outsiders would be not only to distort it, but to involve it in such practical diffi- culties as would make the boldest ad- juster tremble.—ANpREE, 41 F. (2d) 812. * # #* BILL of lading, drawn by a steamship company, must be con- strued most strongly against it.— Gelderman v. Dollar Steamship lines, Ltd., 41 F. (2d) 398. ce ek VESSEL lying in the open road- stead and delayed because of a wreck in the channel was held, in the case of BALpHILL, 42 F. (2d) 123, not to have “arrived” for loading at a port SO as to start running of lay days. In considering what constitutes a port, the court quoted from the English case of Sailing Ship Carston Co. vy. Hickie Co., 15 Q. B. D. 580, as follows: “The thing to consider is the ‘com- mercial or business’ port as distin- guished from the ‘legal’ port. A port is a place intended for loading or unload- ing goods; hence includes the natural shelter surrounding water, as also sheltered water produced by artificial jetties, etc. If the area in question is a place of only comparative safety, the question is whether people in fact have their ships loaded or unloaded there; if they do, it is part of the port. To find out how much further out the . port may extend, the question is whether the port authorities have as- sumed jurisdiction over vessels there- in and the ships have submitted to port discipline.” * * * N OVERTAKING vessel, under article 24 of the Pilot Rules, is bound to keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel, and when the latter accedes to a passing signal, she as- sumes no responsibility for the over- MARINE REVIEW—May, 1931 taking vessel’s maneuver, and is under no obligation except to refrain from interference with the overtaking ves- sel and to hold her course and speed as far as practicable.—CrEDARHURsT, 42 F. (2d) 139. * # & HE owner has the burden of prov- ing that his barge was seaworthy when the cargo was loaded, it was de- clared in the case of Harper No. 145, 42 F. (2d) 161. It was also said that the leaking and capsizing of the barge raised a presumption of unseaworthi- ness, but this presumption might of course be rebutted. * ke # N CONSIDERING section 450 of the United States code, making any ves- sel liable when “used or employed” in discharging refuse, slush, etc., in the case of Cotompo, 42 F. (2d) 211, the court said: “The statute speaks with the maritime law in mind, under which the ship is so often regarded as an offender. This is indeed a fiction, but its roots go back far into the law, and the resulting liability is like many others imposed upon an indi- vidual, regardless of his personal fault. Having committed his ship to the seas, an owner takes the risk of much which he cannot easily control. As between him and the injured party, it is thought desirable to throw the loss where prevention would have been at least possible.” e& ke HE test of navigability in fact of a stream or lake is whether in its natural condition it is used or sus- ceptible of being used in its natural and ordinary condition as a highway for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. To meet that test a water course should be susceptible of use for such purposes. It should be of prac- ticable usefulness to the public as 4 public highway in its natural state, and without the aid of artificial means. It must have had a useful ca pacity long enough to be used as @ highway of transportation, and such purposes, use, and navigability must be established by clear evidence.— United States v. Ladley, 42 F. (2d) 474, ee ae HE right to limitation of liability applies to a claim founded upon 4 nonmaritime or a maritime tort if it arises out of the carelessness or con- duct of the master and crew, it was held in the case of Artas No. 7, 42 F. (2d) 480, but leaves the owner liable for his own fault, neglect, or contract. ‘ 2 u i ;