Essay on Report: Law and Waterman Ss Corporation

Submitted By woshishan33
Words: 1161
Pages: 5

SINGAPORE POLYTECHNIC

DIPLOMA IN MARITIME BUSINESS

MARITIME LAW (MA0123)

ASSIGNMENT 2

Group Assignment

Article III Rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules deals with the shipowner’s obligation to make the vessel seaworthy. The common law also requires the shipowner to make the vessel seaworthy. How do they differ? Discuss the two with suitable case laws.

Lim Jia Yan 1137136 DMB/FT/3B/21

Guo ShanShan 1136982 DMB/FT/3B/21

Ho SuYi 1138067 DMB/FT/3B/21

Contents page

1. Definition of seaworthiness ………………………….………………………………3

2. seaworthiness at Common law………………………………………………………3 2.1 case law” McFadden v Blue Star Lines [1905]”

3. Seaworthiness at The Hague-Visby Rule…………………………………………4
3.1 The Hague-Visby Rule Article III
3.2 Due diligence
3.3 Case law [The Kapitan Sakharov 2000]
Case law [ Brown v Nitrate Producers SS Co (1937)]
Case law[Waterman SS Corporation v United States SR and M Co]

4. Conclusion....………………………………………………………….………………..…….6

5. References - Harvard styleReferences…………………………………………………………….….............................7

1. Definition of seaworthiness
Seaworthiness is defined as the state of a vessel in such a condition, with such equipment, and manned by such a master and crew, that normally the cargo will be loaded, carried, cared for and discharged properly and safely on the contemplated voyage.

2. seaworthiness at Common law
At common law, the obligation of the shipowner to provide a seaworthy ship is an unconditional one and he will be absolutely liable, irrespective of fault, for any breach of the undertaking.
Lord Blackburn in Steel v State Line described the seaworthiness obligation as amounting to an undertaking ‘not merely that they [the owners] should do their best to make the ship fit, but that the ship should really be fit’.

2.1 case law” McFadden v Blue Star Lines [1905]”

In McFadden v Blue Star Lines [1905] 1 KB 607 it was stated that, to be seaworthy, a vessel must have the degree of fitness that an ordinarily careful and prudent shipowner would require his vessel to have at the commencement of a voyage, having regard to all possible circumstances. And the Marine Insurance Act 1906 s 39(4) provides that "a ship is deemed to be seaworthy when she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the adventure insured."
The absolute obligation of seaworthiness at common law attaches at two points. At the commencement of loading, the ship must be fit to receive the cargo and fit as a ship for the ordinary perils of lying afloat in harbor while receiving her cargo. Secondly, the ship must be fit in design, structure, condition, and equipment to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage.

3. Seaworthiness at The Hague-Visby Rule
3.1 The Hague-Visby Rule Article III
The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to:
(a) Make the ship seaworthy;
(b) Properly man, equip and supply the ship;
(c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.

3.2 Due diligence

Due diligence, a phrase that is said to be derived from the US Harter Act of 1983 and has been interpreted by the courts as being roughly equivalent to the common law duty of reasonable care and this was confirmed in Papera Traders Co Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (The Eurasian Dream) by Cresswell J when he said that ‘the exercise of due diligence is equivalent to the exercise of reasonable care and skill... lack of due diligence is negligence..’
The Rules refer to the provision of a seaworthy ship ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage’.

Hague Visby Rule only…