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 as used in the federal statute providing that the liability of the owner of any vessel, for any loss, damage, or injury occasioned or in- eurred without the privity or knowledge of such owner, shall in no ease exceed the value of the in- terest of such owner in the vessel, etc., was held, in the Case of SoutH Coast, 71 F. (2d) 891, to mean some fault or neglect in which the owner personally participates. The word “knowledge’’, as used, means some personal cognizance, or means of knowledge, of which the owner is bound to avail himself, of a con- templated loss, or of a condition of things likely to produce or contribute to a loss, without adopting appro- priate means to prevent it. With these definitions in mind, the court held that where unseaworthiness which caused the loss of a_ vessel ‘was without privity or knowledge on ithe owner’s part, he was entitled to a limitation of liability; further, that where the owner was guided by directions, and sought to conform to requirements, of United States in- sspectors who inspected the boiler and the ship was lost when the boiler al- legedly exploded, the owner was entitled to a limitation of liability, since any defect in the boiler would be without privity or knowledge of the owner. T word “‘privity’ of the owner, * % * jw ERRYBOAT, not making more @ than slow speed and no greater than that of another ferryboat, with which she collided in a dense fog, after stopping her engines and re- versing on hearing such other boat’s fog signal forward of her beam as the vessels neared each other on con- verging courses, was not at fault for the collision. Tuxedo, 8 Fed. Supp. 344, oh * * starboard to starboard, assent so to pass in not required; they must do so; the rule does not require one to start across the other’s bows, or to stop and back. A tug coming up ‘on the wrong side of a narrow chaz- nel has the burden of showing that ‘she was not at fault for collision of ‘a carfloat in her tow with a steamer; I" VESSELS are in position to pass 20 Specially Compiled for Marine Review however, where such tug did not im- pede navigation of the steamer and the tug’s lights were clearly visible by the steamer in time to shape her movements accordingly, the _ tug’s fault did not contribute to the col- lision—BELLHAVEN, 72 F. (2d) 206. RO Ree HERE a bill of lading provides that no claim arising thereun- der shall be valid unless made in writing by consignees to the carrier’s agent at the port of discharge, with- in a specified time, compliance with such clause is necessary to recovery. This is true said the court in the case of Rhodes vy. United States, 8 Fed. Supp. 124. Though the carrier had knowledge of the damage to the car- go or the consignee had given writ- ten notice of the damage; notice of damage was not notice of claim. It was further held that where damage to lily bulbs shipped from Japan was claimed to be the result of heating and decay, which was excepted by the bill of lading, recovery could not be had except by proof of negligence on the part of the shipowner. * * * ERRYBOAT proceeding in a fog at half speed, i.e., four miles an hour, which was too fast to enable her to stop within the limit of visibility, which was about 100 feet, and a barge whose bargee answered the fer- ryboat’s fog signal by hammering with a stick on an old dishpan four or five times, while standing in a doorway of his housing, were both at fault for a collision between the ves- sels; decree awarding half damages to the owner of the ferryboat was entered by the court in the case of Hopatcong, 8 Fed. Supp. 327. ok Ba * HEN a seaman claims to have been injured by the tort of his employer, even though he was en- gaged in the performance of a mari- time contract when so injured, the question whether liability is to be de- termined according to the rules of the maritime law or according to the rules of the local law, depends upon the question whether such injury was received on navigable water or on land, In the case of Kulezyk v. Rock- port Steamship Co., 8 Fed. Supp. 336, it was declared that as the injuries MARINE REVIEwW—February, 1935 complained of were sustained by the plaintiff while he was standing upon a dock on land and not upon a vessel, or elsewhere on any navigable water, the injuries constituted a nonmari- time tort, not subject to the rules of the maritime law. The rights and lia- bilities of the parties, it was held, were governed by the applicable law of the state in which the dock re- ferred to was located. * * * HE 12-mile limit, within which foreign vessels may be seized, has been superseded as to British vessels by a treaty, which permits boarding to examine the manifest, ete., beyond the three-mile limit, if the vessel is within one hour’s sailing distance of the coast, but forbids it as to vessels not within such sailing distance, This treaty, it was pointed out in the case of Golmaccam, 8 Fed. Supp. 338, was not abrogated by repeal of the pro- hibition amendment, * * * TEAMSHIP passenger, who ac- S cepted a ticket with printed lim- itation of value of her baggage unless a greater value were declared and paid for, became bound thereby (LE- VIATHAN, 72 F. (2d) 286), though no- tice of what her choice of rates might be was printed on the back of her ticket and not specifically called to her attention. Such limitation of value of the passenger’s baggage was binding on her, though she was a minor when she bought and used the ticket. * * + BARGEE, who fell into the wa- roe when the shore end of the gangplank of a steamer, alongside which the barge was brought to re- ceive cargo, slipped off as he was go- ing ashore after the day’s work to enjoy his leisure, was an ‘invited person’’, for whose safety the steam- ship owner owed the duty to exer- cise reasonable care. An ‘invited person’’, within the above ruling in the case of Radoslovich v, Naviga- zione Libera Triestina, S. A., 72 F. (2d) 367, isone who enters the prem- ises of another not only for his own purposes but in the interest of the owner, who must be aware that the mutual interest of both may lead to such an entry.