A bill of lading exempted the shipowner from liability for ‘any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of pilots, master, or crew in the navigation of the ship in the ordinary course of the voyage.’ A cargo shipped thereunder was damaged by the absence of casing on the pipe of a water-closet, which was broken by the pressure of the cargo in rough weather. The master and crew had before the commencement of the voyage removed the casing, and considered it unnecessary to replace it, trusting to other means for the protection of the pipe. According to usual practice in jute-carrying vessels, such a pipe is cased before the cargo is loaded and the ship starts on her voyage. After the vessel was loaded the pipe in question was not visible or accessible without the removal of part of the cargo.
In an action at the instance of the onerous indorsee of the bill of lading against the owners- held ( rev. the decision of the Second Division) that without casing on the pipe, the vessel was not in a condition to carry her cargo with reasonable safety, and as this defect ought to have been remedied before the voyage began, it was a breach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness on the part of the shipowner, who was accordingly not protected by the terms of the bill of lading.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Herschell), and Lords Watson, Halsbury, Morris, and Field
Citations:
[1892] UKHL 169, 30 SLR 169
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Transport
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.634562
