Maritime Cases

One of the best ways to underline what action should be taken in any given situation relative to the handling and stowage of cargo is to study the decisions of the courts in past cases. With this idea in mind, several illustrative cases are discussed below in brief. The discussions are based on actual cases and they demonstrate dramatically how a ship’s officer and other operating personnel can best serve to protect the interests of the shipowner.

¹ The basic information regarding the cases outlined in this chapter was obtained. from American Maritime Cases, published under the auspices of the Maritime Law Association of the United States. References at the end of some discussions refer the reader to American Maritime Cases, the year published, and the page number, for example (1947-AMC-568). The reports of these cases are interesting to all personnel connected in any way with the operation of merchant ships. The reports are of particular importance to ship’s officers as a means of learning how the court view questions concerning damaged cargo and the causes. It gives one an opportunity to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone this way before and, probably, to acquire greater insight into better practices. AMC is published monthly in paper bound editions and yearly issues are available in book form. Digests for reference purposes are also available. These cases are accounts of actual incidents and resulting litigation and the basic causes of cargo damage are brought to light vividly.

Improper stowage versus insufficiency of packaging

In 1942 a ship at Basra, Iraq, loaded 732 cases and 319 bags of licorice extract from open lighters. The licorice had been shipped by rail from Turkey and had been on the dock waiting for the ship for about one month. The cases were marked with the words: “Stow away from the boilers.”

When loading commenced, the temperature of the atmosphere was about 115°F. The master of the ship noted that some of the cases were broken and in some instances the licorice was oozing out. He had all damaged containers recoopered and endorsed the bill of lading to the effect that the cases were badly damaged and recoopered, but that the ship could not be responsible for loss of contents or short delivery.

The entire cargo of licorice was stowed in the forward part of No. 4 ‘tweendecks, directly forward of which was the engine room. The cargo extended from the deck of the compartment to within 12 in. of the overhead. The cases were stowed about eight high with the bags on top. The ship proceeded to an East African port and loaded chrome ore. Some of this chrome ore was placed just aft of the licorice with a temporary wooden bulkhead erected between the two cargoes. During the voyage, no temperatures were taken of the hold spaces and no inspections made. In Baltimore, where the licorice was to be discharged, it was found that the extract had broken out of most of the cases and bags when in a glutinous state and thereafter had become a hard mass. Many of the cases and bags were stuck together. Wood, nails, and other foreign material were imbedded in the licorice. This made it impossible to remove the cargo from the ship case by case or bag by bag. It had to be broken by picks before it could be removed from the hold. Recovery was sought for the expense of removing it, melting it down to remove the foreign material, and making it merchantable.

In court, the shipper’s argument was that the damage was due to improper stowage. He claimed that the licorice should have been stowed in one of the lower holds, preferably in No. 1 lower hold where the temperature was less than in No. 4 ‘tween decks, and also that dunnage should have been used between tiers to allow better circulation of air.

The carrier claimed that the licorice extract was not in good condition when loaded and its stowage was entirely proper. It was also claimed that any change in the condition of the licorice during the voyage was due to inherent vice and to the insufficiency of packaging.

It was developed in court that the recognized place for stowing such Cargo was below the waterline of the ship where the temperatures are lower than in the upper deck. The carrier introduced temperatures of another ship that had carried licorice extract successfully in this upper deck, but the court rejected these records. It rejected them because it was purely a matter of speculation whether the temperatures on the first ship were the same as those on the second. In fact, there were two things that made it seem likely that the temperature on the second ship was probably higher. First, chrome ore in bulk will heat when damp. Such cargo was stowed adjacent to the licorice, and although there is no evidence that it did or did not heat, the court could not accept the temperatures with so much conjecture about them. Secondly, the ventilators in the after part of the ‘tween decks where the licorice was stowed led into a special locker which prevented full circulation of the air in that space. This was not the case on the first ship.

It may have been true that the temperatures on the two ships mentioned above were the same, but the ship’s officers failed to take any temperature records and log them; therefore, the carrier was without proof.

The court held in favour of the shipper saying that he had proved, as he must, that the cargo was in a marketable condition when delivered to the Ship, but that on arrival in Baltimore it was not marketable. The court also concluded that the proximate cause of the change was not insufficiency of packaging or inherent defect but improper stowage.

The court went on to explain its position by pointing out that, whereas there was no obligation on the part of the vessel to keep the extract after stowage from becoming somewhat either more soft or more hard (because it was characteristic of the extract to become more or less viscous with change of temperature), there was an obligation to use every reasonable effort to check its viscosity so that it would not change greatly from that which it had when taken aboard the vessel. The court was satisfied that such requirement was not met when the vessel’s officers, being fully apprised of the character of the cargo, failed to stow it in that part of the vessel where it was the custom to stow it and where the temperature was indisputably lower.

Although it is true that it cannot be said with certainty that had the cargo been so placed its condition upon arrival in Baltimore would have been different, it is reasonable to believe that had proper precautions been taken its condition on arrival would not have been materially different from that when delivered to the ship in Basra.

The court went on to point out that the law requires the shipowner to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristics of goods tendered for shipment and to exercise due care in their handling and stowage, including such methods as their nature requires.

The provision for limitation of liability contained in the bill of lading which the vessel owners might properly have asserted as a defense to the claim, had the stowage of the cargo been proper, becomes of no avail. (1947-AMC-568)