Abstract
This study gives an overview of the international understanding of “seaworthiness,” both in contracts of carriage and in charterparties. The obligation to provide a seaworthy ship is of great importance in all contracts of carriage that are governed by the Hague or the Hague–Visby Rules, and presents a duty that cannot be derogated from. The study considers a number of aspects, namely the required condition of the vessel, the necessary standard of care in ensuring the seaworthiness of the vessel, the point in time in which seaworthiness is assessed, and the question if fault or negligence of third parties can be attributed to the person in charge of the vessel. Precedents on these aspects from different countries are compared in order to assess whether there is international uniformity in the understanding of the term. In each case, a comparison is drawn between the provisions of the HVR and the law applicable to charterparties, which is usually governed by standard contracts rather than mandatory international law.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Steel and Craig v. The State Line Steamship Company (1877) 4 R. (H.L.) 103, 105
The “Silviaˮ (1898) 171 U.S. 462
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 21.04.1975, II ZR 164/13; 15.10.1979, II ZR 80/77 (“Mannyˮ) (both with regard to inland waterway vessels); 20.02.1995, II ZR 60/94
Explicitly confirmed to cause unseaworthiness under US law: Morrisey v. SSA & J. Faith, 252 F. Supp. 54 (N.D. Ohio 1965)
The French Cour de Cassation for instance held that the handling of a cargo of fuel oil required permanent surveillance, [1951] 2 Gazette du Palais 225 (“Paraskevopoulosˮ)
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 20.02.1995, II ZR 60/94
Steel and Craig v. The State Line Steamship Company (1877) 4 R. (H.L.) 103, 111: “That is generally expressed by saying that it shall be seaworthy […] not merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but that the ship should really be fit”
Kopitoff v. Wilson 1 Q.B.D. 377, 383
FC Bradley & Sons v Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd (1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 395, 396
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 11.03.1974, II ZR 45/73 (“Neuwardersandˮ)
Suggested in Golden Fleece Maritime Inc. v. ST Shipping and Transport (The “Elli” and the “Frixos”) [2008] EWCH Civ. 584, even though the case concerned a charterparty and was decided on a different provision
Papera Traders Co. Ltd. & Others v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd (The “Eurasian Dream”) [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm), para. 143
Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam (The “Amstelslotˮ) [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223
Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent, 21.05.1996, European Transport Law 1996, 688 (“Adrianoˮ)
Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, 02.03.2017, 6 U 86/16 (“MOL Comfortˮ)
American Law: Bernstein Co. v MS “Titaniaˮ A.M.C. 2040, 2044 (E.D. Louisana 1955); German Law: German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 15.10.1979, II ZR 80/77 (“Mannyˮ)
Lefebvre, G.: L’obligation de navigabilité et le transport maritime sous connaissement. Les cahiers de droit 31(1), 81–123, 100 (1990), footnote 69
Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd. [1959] A.C. 589, 603
Giertsen v. Turnbull, 1908 S.C. 1101
[1959] A.C. 589
Union Carbide & Carbon Corp v. The “Walter Raleighˮ et al., 109 F. Supp. 781, 792 (S.D. N.Y. 1951)
Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht), 19.04.2016, 411 HKO 99/14 (“MOL Comfortˮ)
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 14.12.1972, II ZR 88/71
Middleton & Co. (Canada) Limited v. Ocean D.S.S. Corp., 137 F.2d 619 (2 Cir. 1943)
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 14.12.1972, II ZR 88/71
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 17.01.1974, II ZR 172/72, regarding a vessel undertaking a voyage in the Baltic in stormy weather with unsecured hatch covers. The means to secure them were on board but the master was found to have consciously decided not to use them, because he trusted in a favourable weather forecast.
Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (Oberlandesgericht), 20.06.2006, 6 U 222/05 (“Cap Triunfoˮ)
The “Makedonia” [1962] P. 190, 195
Dupeyre v. The Western Marine & Fire Insurance Co., 41 (2) Louisiana Reports, 457, 460 (S.C. Louisiana 1843)
Riverstone Meat Co. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. (The“Muncaster Castleˮ) [1961] A.C. 807
General Motors Corp. v. The “Olanchoˮ et al., 115 F.Supp. 107 (S.D. N.Y. 1953), p. 115
German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 28.06.1971, II ZR 66/69
[2000] C.L.C. 1376, 1388
American Linseed Co. v. United States, 40 F.2d 657 (E.D. N.Y 1930)
Rechtbank van Koophandel of Antwerp, 18.05.1994, (1995) European Transport Law 616
Fireman’s Funds Insurance Companies v The “Vignesˮ, 794 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1986)
Suggested by French courts: Cour d’Appel de Rennes, 13.06.1985, (1986) DMF 625 (“Gogofrioˮ); Cour d’Appel de Paris, 19.06.1959, (1960) DMF 86 (“Merkuriusˮ), but the presumption was considered rebutted in both cases.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gahlen, S.F. (2019). Seaworthiness and Major Accidents at Sea—An International Perspective. In: Vega Sáenz, A., Pereira, N., Carral Couce, L., Fraguela Formoso, J. (eds) Proceedings of the 25th Pan-American Conference of Naval Engineering—COPINAVAL. COPINAVAL 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89812-4_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89812-4_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89811-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89812-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)