May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft

290 U.S. 333 (1933)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, the assignee of cargo owners filed libels against D, the owner of the 'Isis,' to recover money deposited as security for general average contributions, the deposit being exacted by D as a condition of delivery. The Isis sailed from loading ports on the Pacific coast with cargo destined for Bremen, Hamburg, and Antwerp. Near Bremen, Germany, she was stranded by reason of negligent navigation, with damage to her rudder stock and also to the rudder blade. Aided by tugs she continued up the river to Bremen with a tendency to sheer to starboard. She discharged her Bremen cargo, and there was then an inspection of the damage. The vessel was put in a dry dock and kept there for a few hours. The examiners reported that the blade was intact. The lower part of it was bent to starboard to the extent of about five degrees. The inspection did not uncover this issue because it was done after dark with the rudder still underwater. Bremen had adequate facilities for the making of complete repairs, but it would have taken about two weeks to make them. To save time and expense for the vessel and her cargo, the decision was made to send her to Hamburg, about seventy miles away, with the cargo still aboard. The rudder was lashed amidships so as to be incapable of motion. The vessel then set forth in the towage of three tugs, one of them in front, and one on either side. She was again stranded hard and fast amidships on a sand spit near the bank from the negligence of those in command. She was brought back to Bremen, where the new damage was repaired. The bend in the rudder was also observed. The entire cargo was transshipped to Antwerp. Before delivery at the destination, D made a demand of the consignees that they deposit sums of cash as security for the payment of general average contributions to the sacrifices and expenses due to the two strandings. The bills of lading contained a Jason clause whereby the consignees agree that if the shipowner has used due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, the cargo is to be liable in general average when the sacrifice or expense results from negligent navigation. Ps do not dispute the liability of the cargo for general average contributions in respect of the first stranding. They do dispute the liability in respect of the second. Ps transferred their claims to an assignee by whom five libels, afterward consolidated, were filed against D. The District Court, confirming the report of a commissioner, gave judgment for and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. P appealed.