Diethelm & Co. v. SS The Flying Trader

• Decision Date: 23 May 1956
• Citation: 141 F. Supp. 271
• Parties: DIETHELM & CO., Ltd., Libelant, v. S.S. THE FLYING TRADER, her engines, boilers, etc., and Isbrandtsen Company, Inc., Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

141 F. Supp. 271

DIETHELM & CO., Ltd., Libelant, v. S.S. THE FLYING TRADER, her engines, boilers, etc., and Isbrandtsen Company, Inc., Respondent.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 23, 1956.

Hill, Rivkins, Middleton, Louis & Warburton, New York City, proctors for libelant (J. Edwin Carey, Melvin J. Tublin, New York City, of counsel).

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, proctors for respondent (Edward J. Heine, Jr., L. DeGrove Potter, New York City, of counsel).

THOMAS F. MURPHY, District Judge.

This action having been heard by the court without a jury, the following are made

Findings of Fact

1. On January 12, 1949, libelant delivered and respondent, a common carrier, received 988 wooden barrels of 99% glacial acetic acid for shipment to Saïgon on deck aboard the S. S. Flying Trader.

2. Respondent examined the barrels presented to it and rejected a certain number as being unfit for stowage. The remaining barrels which were in apparent sound condition were accepted and a bill of lading was issued which contained on its face the notation "On Deck At Owners' Risk" and "988 Reused Bbls. 172 Bbls. Heads Warped."

3. Paragraph 7 of the bill of lading contains the following language: "In respect of goods carried on deck all risks of loss or damage by perils inherent in such carriage shall be borne by the shipper or the consignee but in all other respects the custody and carriage of such goods shall be governed by the terms of this bill of lading and the provisions stated in said Carriage of Goods by Sea Act notwithstanding § 1(c) thereof * * *."

4. Seven times between January 16 and January 22, 1949 during the voyage which commenced on January 14 the deck cargo in question broke loose from its lashings and was adrift.

5. When the vessel arrived at Saïgon March 22, 1949, 80 barrels of libelant's cargo were leaking and short part of contents, 22 were empty and 18 were missing.

6. At no time during the voyage when the cargo was adrift were weather and sea conditions other than what might reasonably have been expected for the North Atlantic at that time of year.

7. Respondent has not sustained its burden of proving the exercise of due care and diligence in stowing the cargo or that the damage and loss were occasioned by a peril of the sea.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter it is necessary to determine whether or not the terms of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1300 et seq. apply to the shipment in question. This determination is material for the purposes of allocating the burden of proof to the proper parties. Respondent contends that since the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is expressly made inapplicable to on-deck cargo the libelant must prove negligence before it can recover. With this I cannot agree. While it is true that on-deck cargo is exempted from the terms of the Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1301, "there would seem to be no positive legislative expression to preclude the shipper and carrier from voluntarily contracting that the provisions of the 1936 Act shall govern their `tackle to tackle' relations in respect to deck cargo. The practice therefore seems to be to carry deck cargoes `at shipper's risk as to perils of the sea' and for every other legal relation conformably to the provisions of the COGSA of 1936. The Ponce D.C., 67 F.Supp. 725, 1946 A. M.C. 1124." Knauth, Ocean Bills of Lading, p. 236. Such practice has received the approval of the courts. Waterman S. S. Corp. v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 5 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 687; Uniao de Transportadores Para Importacao E. Comercio, Ltda. v. Companhia De Navegacao Carregadores Acoreanos, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1949, 84 F.Supp. 582. Indeed, this would seem to be the plain intent of paragraph 7 of the bill of lading. The burden, therefore, is on respondent to prove either that the loss was occasioned by a peril of the sea or that it exercised due care and diligence.

A peril of the sea is incapable of precise definition. Each case must turn on its peculiar facts. The damage here complained of occurred in the winter North Atlantic. When the cargo first broke loose two days after departure from New York the smooth log books indicate boarding seas and a wind force of 5 on the Beaufort Scale. From time to time during the period from January 16 to January 22 when the cargo was adrift seven times the log books make reference to rough, heavy seas, spray on the weather side, occasional seas over the bow, decks awash with spray and severe pitching and rolling. It also appears that from time to time it was impossible to take soundings of the bilges, that water lights were torn loose, reel covers torn apart and the cement broken in the starboard chain pipe. Never at any time did the wind exceed Force 8. None of this gives indication of any unusual conditions. The respondent accordingly has not sustained its burden of proving that the damage to the cargo was caused by a peril of the sea. Cf. The Vizcaya, D.C.E.D.Pa.1945, 63 F.Supp. 898.

It is also urged that the loss resulted from an inherent defect in the goods or from their faulty packaging. It appears that of the 1265 barrels of acid presented for shipment 277 were rejected as unfit for stowing. All of the 988 barrels finally received were reused barrels, and of these 172 had warped heads. However, both Captain Tang, who had charge of respondent's terminal operations and Mr. Boyle, the chief officer, testified that the barrels actually stowed were in apparent sound condition. Respondent argues, and it is not rebutted, that the security of the stow depends...