SHIPOWNERS’ LIABILITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7870, 4 August 1911, Page 1

SHIPOWNERS’ LIABILITY

POE DAMAGE TO GOODS IN TRANSIT. AN INTERESTING CASE. His Worship Dr A. McArthur, S.M., delivered his reserved decision in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in the case in ■which Mason, Strufchers and Co. sued the Shaw, Savill and Albion Shipping Company for £143 2s Gd, in connection with the carriage by the defendants of galvanised iron wire in the steamer PaReha. The wire was delivered to the defendants in good order and condition, but when it reached its destination it was sq damaged as to be unsaleable and useless to the plaintiffs. The consignee, the Minister of the Postal and Telegraph Department, refused to take delivery of the goods, and £l3 2s 6d was duo for storage at Wellington. Plaintiffs therefore claimed £123, the value of the wire, £l3 2s 6cl storage, and £lO general damages. For the defence, said his Worship, it wap contended that there should have been a covering on the wire, that it was shipped with an inherent defect, that it was insufficiently protected, and that there was no negligence on the part of the shipowners. “I think," continued his Worship, "that it is common ground that ordinarily . the burden of proving that a loss which has occurred has been due to an excepted cause falls', upon the shipowner who seeks to excuse himself, but if a loss apparently falls within an exception, the burden of showing that the shipowner is not entitled to the benefit of the exception on the ground of negligence is upon the person so •contending. To me it appears that thp loss apparently {falls within the exceptions stated in the bill of lading, more particularly insufficiency of packing, sweating, evaporation, \or the injurious effects of other goods. Therefore in my opinion the onus of proving negligence lies upon the plaintiff in this case. The goods were shipped in good order and condition, it has been shown that they were properly stowed, and yet they ape landed in a damaged condition, not from knocking about, but from corrosion, either from outside influences or from some inherent defect. I Quite agree with counsel for the plaintiffs that i the defendant company must bring itee'if within the exceptions of flic bill of lading—that there was no negligence on behalf of the company or that there was insufficiency of packing 1 cn behalf of the shippers, or that the damage, to the goods arose from the injurious effects of other goods or that there was sweating or heating, the last to bo outside of extraneous heating. Of course in construing a shipowner's liability it must be remembered that where the words lea.v6 the intention in doubt they are to be construed against the person for whose benefit they have been introduced. The meaning must not be extended to give him or them a protection for which ho or they have not bargained in clear terms.”

His "Worship cited authorities bearing on the matter, and then said: “Whore risks have been excepted tho shipowner docs not undertake that more than reasonable care and skill will bo shown. Ignorance of the injurious consequences of stowing particular k.iuds of goods together does not always amount to negligence so as to prevent him rfrom relying on the exemptions.” Plaintiffs were nonsuited. Mr A. Blair appeared for plaintiffs and Mr W. 11* I). Bell for defendants.