LOST ON VOYAGE

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 35, 10 August 1921, Page 6

LOST ON VOYAGE

SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY FOR

GOODS

ASSESSMENT OF VALUE.

Six pieces of indigo' worsted twill shipped in a case at Liverpool, and three pieces delivered from the steamer Paparoa to the consignee in Wellington, Were the cause of a lawsuit between Murie and Ritchie, Ltd., and W. Wallis, argued before the Acting-Chief Justice Mr. Justice Sim on sth August. Judgment was given this morning. The defendant admitted liability for the loss of three of the pieces shipped, and the only question, said his Honour, was as to the basis on which the damages ■should be assessed, The plaintiff claimed £241 2a, the invoice cost of the three missing pieces, plus landing charges. The shipowner held that the amount should be only £106 13s 4d, and that, in any view of the matter, the damages could not exceed £200. The shipowner's liability depended on the proper construction of clause (d) of the bill of lading, .which was as follows :—"The shipowner will not be accountable for. goods .... beyond £10 per cubic foot for measurement goods or per hundredweight for weight cargo, nor beyond £200 in respect of any one package, unless in either case the value thereof shall have been stated .... and extra freight agreed upon and paid and' bills of lading signed with declaration of the nature and value of the goods appearing thereon. When the value is declared and extra freight agreed, as aforesaid the shipowner's liability shall not exceed such value, .'. ." r ■

The goods in question were measurement goods, and their value thereof had not been stated in terms of this clause, and it was contended by Mr. Blair that in these circumstances the limit of £10 per cubic .foot applied to the plaintiff's claim. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that this limitation could not apply where part only of the contents of. a, package had been r lost or damaged on the voyage, and that it was intended to apply only where the^whole package was lost or destroyed. There did not appear, said his Honour, to be any valid reason for restricting in this way the operation of the clause. There might be difficulty in applying the £10 per cubic foot limit in some cases, but that was not a 'reason for saying that it was not to apply at all to a case of partial loss. In the present case the shipowner might not be quite right in the way in which that limit had been applied to the plaintiff's claim. The measurement of the case containing' the twill was 21 feet 4 inches. It contained six pieces of twill, of which only three were delivered, and the sum of £106 13s 4d was arrived at by treating the liability as being for half the contents of the case on the measurement basis. It was not admitted, however,- that all the pieces in the case were of the same siy.ej and there might have to be some' adjustment of the' amount. It was clear, however, that tho shipowner was entitled to have the damages assessed on the £10 per cubic foot basis. . If in any case that limit would bring the amount payable in' respect of one package to more than £200, the shipowner's liability was limited then to £200. That, in his/ opinion, was the proper construction of the bill of lading, and, as agreed, the further hearing of the case would stand adjourned to enable the plaintiff and defendant' to call evidence- as to the "reasonableness of the limitations provided by the bill of lading. At the hearing, ]\lr. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for tho defendant. ■, - 1. ' ' \ . ■