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 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law Specially Compiled for Marine Review N FOG collision cases, the duty of care is met if the vessel is under such control that she can reverse her engines and come to a standstill in time to avoid colliding with a vessel or object which she ought to see, hav- ing regard to the fog density. The rule does not require that the vessel must always stop in a fog.—JoHN F. Lewis, 51 F. (2d) 274. * * * HE consignee of a grain cargo, i ae to unload the vessel, is bound to exercise due diligence under the circumstances and the custom of the port to discharge the vessel as speedily as possible. Damages can only be recovered upon proof that the delay complained of was due to some fault or negligence on the part of the consignee. What is a reasonable de- lay in unloading a ship depends upon the surrounding circumstances. — Kinsman Transit Co. v. 50,000 Bushels of Wheat, 51 F. (2d) 377. e EMURRAGE will only be allowed when profits have actually been, or may be reasonably supposed to have been, lost, and the amount of such profits is proven with reasonable cer- tainty. There must be a pecuniary loss, or at least a reasonable certainty of pecuniary loss, and not a mere in- convenience arising from an_ inabil- ity to use the vessel. It has been the general understanding in this country that damages for detention are not recoverable in collision cases without proof of actual pecuniary loss caused thereby—Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. California Sea Products Co., 51 F. (2d) 466. * *e # ITH reference to assumption of W vist by employes, it was said in CALVERT, 51 F. (2d) 494, that “it is clear from statute and decision that it applies in admiralty, but under the terms of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the act of a seaman in assum- ing the risk must have been volun- tary and not under restraint. It would be an extremely harsh applica- tion of this rule and one which we believe has never been invoked by a court of admirality, to hold that a master of a vessel assumed the risk of the unseaworthiness of a _ vessel by continuing in the employ of a com- pany whose duty it was to see that the vessel was seaworthy. * * We 22 have never understood that the mere knowledge on the part of a bargeman that a vessel was leaking somewhat and his continued employment with this knowledge makes out the defense of assumption of risk against damage due to a general unseaworthy condi- tion. Assumption of‘risk involves the ready and willing acceptance of risks which are known and thoroughly ap- preciated.” * * * HE test of seaworthiness is wheth- lie the vessel is reasonably fit to car- ry the cargo undertaken to be carried. “Seaworthiness” is given a wider ap- plication than the word itself imports. The first thing one thinks of in con- nection with seaworthiness is the con- dition of the hull and the equipment; but it has long been settled that a ves- sel may also be rendered unseaworthy because of bad stowage. Unseaworthi- ness may also result from careless use of good equipment before the ves- sel breaks ground. A tank barge so laden that it has only two feet free- board is not seaworthy where the hatches are not securely fastened when the vessel is ready to sail. A tank barge light is doubtless seaworthy with hatches left open, but the same cannot be said of a loaded barge.— Frep E. Haster, 51 F. (2d) 779. ek k * CHARTERER, bound to pay stevedoring charges, has no pow- er to bind the shipowner.—C. F. Starita Co. Inc. v. Compagnie Havraise Peninsulaire de Navigation a Vapeur, 524 (20) 58: * * * HE federal statutes of limitation Ea liability are designed to pro- tect shipowners who, in the business of sending ships down to the sea, make them shipshape for the voyage. In a case of a master undertaking to pay for repairing an abandoned ves- sel under a profit-sharing arrangement with the owner, it requires the clear- est kind of proof that everything was done which was necessary to fit her out.—In ré Jacobson, 52 F.. (2d) 178. * kk Y THE maritime law a seaman who falls sick or is wounded in the service of the ship has always been entitled to “wages, maintenance and cure’—that is, care, not a _ positive cure, which may indeed be impossible. MARINE REVIEW—May, 1932 If a breach of the obligation to care for the sick or wounded seaman ag- gravated his condition and resulted, for example, in the amputation of a limb or in permanent disability, he could recover not only expenses for medical treatment, but compensatory damages as well. But if death re- sulted, no action lay, for neither the general maritime law nor the common law gave an action for the death of a person. Nor does the Jones act pro- vide a remedy for death resulting from an illness which occurred with- out fault on the part of the ship but was aggravated by a failure to per- form the ship’s maritime duty to pro vide cure.—Cortes v. Baltimore Insu- lar line, 52 F. (2d) 22. Eo * * EAWORTHINESS is to be deter: mined when the ship _ breaks ground and is measured by her fit- ness in all respects to fulfill the pur- poses of the voyage as then contem- plated. Seaworthiness is further de- termined upon the facts and circum- stances in each particular case.—Hrie & St. Lawrence Corp. v. Barnes-Ames ©o752- EF: (2d) 2217; NE whose ship has been injured may, against the wrongdoer, liquidate his damages by expert testi- mony and never repair his vessel. But owing to the necessary looseness of such method of proof, recourse should only be had to it in cases of special circumstances which necessi- tate a departure from the ordinary rule. The normal method of proving physical damage is to show exactly what repairs were made and what those repairs cost.—MoLLir SCULLY, 52 EF. (2d): 239. * FF HE general rule in the United States is that, unless otherwise stipulated, prepaid freight must be re- turned to the shipper if the goods do not arrive. If, however, the voyage is interrupted by a peril of the sea which necessitates repairs to the ves- sel, the shipowner has a lien on the cargo for the earning of the freight, and has a right to carry the cargo for- ward by his vessel or some other con- veyance and deliver it and receive his full freight. The shipowner is entitled to a reasonable time within which to repair the vessel.—FREDENSBRO, 52. F. (2d) 854.