MARITIME CASES

Inspection of cargo spaces

The case discussed below was taken from the records of a large insurance company and serves to illustrate the importance of thorough inspection of cargo spaces, the value of taking Soundings (especially during fueling operations), and the dangers in. Volved in pressing up double bottom tanks.

A claim amounting to $350,000 was filed against the shipowner for fuel oil damage to tobacco. Fuel oil from the double bottom tanks escaped into the cargo hold and came in contact with a large number of bales of tobacco. To get all the facts, the story must begin with the loading of the outward cargo in the United States.

Railroad rails were loaded in the United States in the lower hold in question for discharge at Basra, Iraq. In discharging these rails, the longshoremen first pried up the rails at one end and secured a chain sling around approximately four rails at a time. The rails were dragged across the tank tops in the process and in a few cases a rail had slipped from the load and dropped back into the square of the hatch.

Although there was no direct proof of it, it was probable that the tank Covers were damaged during this discharging process. The tank lids, however, were not examined before the tobacco was loaded on board. Later, the master and chief officer signed a statement to the effect that the lids were damaged while discharging the rails.

After the rails were discharged, the hold was prepared for the stowage of tobacco. Two inches of dunnage was laid crisscross fashion on the tank tops, and mats were laid over the dunnage, around ironwork, and as a liner around all sides of the hold. There were permanent horizontal Cargo battens at the sides of the hold and in addition strips of wood were fashioned vertically over the battens.

The chief officer, whose duty it was to inspect the hold, went into the hold while mats were being laid and after it had been cleaned up. As far as he knew, the lids may have been covered over with mats at the time he made his inspection. According to the master, who had been on the ship since she was built, the manhole lids had never been removed and no damage to them had ever been heard of or reported.

Some 3000 bales of tobacco were loaded into the lower hold. After the vessel completed loading, she proceeded to a fueling port. The chief engineer estimated he had between 650 and 700 barrels of fuel on board, all in the settling tanks. Oil was pumped on board. When the operation was completed, an oil barge man came aboard to have his account signed by the chief engineer. This man claimed 12,515 barrels had been supplied, or some 900 barrels more than the chief engineer could account for. After some verification of the barge man’s records, it was decided to take bilge soundings. The mate was busy at the time and soundings were taken by the maintenance man. Four feet of oil was discovered in the cargo hold in which the tobacco was stowed.

It developed that the mate had not requested any soundings during the morning because the men were busy tying up the oil barge, and later it had been overlooked. However, the boatswain said he had been told by the mate not to take soundings while in port!

Due to war time conditions the ship sailed to join a convoy with the oil in the cargo hold. During the voyage the fuel oil was consumed but the damage to the tobacco was heavy.

Counsel representing the shipper made the following observations in arguing the case:

The following facts or circumstances appear to be established. The damage to the tank lids existed when the chief officer made his inspection and before the tobacco was loaded. It is unimportant how long before or in what manner the damage did happen. The lids and their shields were not examined or inspected prior to loading the tobacco. Based on the usual Or normal standard of due diligence, we think there was a clear failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy with respect to cargo in not inspecting and discovering the condition of the lids before the commencement of the voyage.

It may be suggested that under existing war conditions a different or lesser standard of due diligence should be applied. While we shall keep this point in mind, we think there were not any war conditions which would furnish any excuse for those on board failing to find the damaged lids. Besides the master and chief officer, there were two other deck officers all of whom had ample time to examine the holds thoroughly. We believe that due diligence was not exercised.

Despite this unseaworthiness and lack of due diligence, the damage, or the greater part of it, would not have happened if bilge soundings had been taken during the fueling at Bahrein Island or if the tanks had not been pressed up at the time.

Even if these acts, that is, failing to take soundings and pressing up of the tanks, were negligent and, if viewed apart, would be considered acts of management: we think they would not constitute a defence. The Court’s Opinion in the case of the Elkton appears decisive on this point. The Court Said: “When the owner accepts cargo in an unseaworthy ship, though the defect be such as may be neutralized by care, be imposes on the shipper an added risk, not merely that his servants may fail, insofar as she is sung 2 fit, but they may neglect those added precautions which her Condition and demands. That risk the statute does not impose upon the Shipper; he bears no loss until the owner has done his best to remove all risks except those inevitable upon the seas.”

On the basis of the facts in the case the shipowner paid $263,341 in damages.

MARINE CARGO OPERATIONS
Copied from a book of Captain Charles L. Sauerbier, USNR
Master Mariner