Cabot Corporation v. SS Mormacscan

• Decision Date: 30 October 1964
• Parties: CABOT CORPORATION and Cabot Argentina, S.A.I.C., Libelants, v. S.S. MORMACSCAN, her engines, etc., Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. and John W. McGrath Corporation, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

235 F. Supp. 845

CABOT CORPORATION and Cabot Argentina, S.A.I.C., Libelants, v. S.S. MORMACSCAN, her engines, etc., Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. and John W. McGrath Corporation, Respondents.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

October 30, 1964.

Hill, Rivkins, Louis & Warburton, New York City, Leo P. Cappelletti, New York City, of counsel, for libelants.

McHugh & Leonard, New York City, for respondent John W. McGrath Corp.

Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City, for respondent Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

BONSAL, District Judge.

This suit in admiralty has been instituted to recover the sum of $42,526.72 against the respondents for damages to a turbogenerator which had been loaded aboard the S. S. MORMACSCAN for transportation to Buenos Aires. It appears that the damage occurred while the respondent John W. McGrath Corporation ("stevedore") was loading steel plates in the same hold when two steel sheets weighing 5,000 pounds apiece dropped on the case containing the turbogenerator. Libelants have moved, pursuant to Admiralty Rule 58, for summary judgment against the stevedore subject to a trial for the determination of damages and interest.

In opposing the motion for summary judgment, stevedore contends that there is a genuine issue of fact to be tried— specifically whether the stevedore is entitled to the benefit of the $500 limitation of liability contained in the bill of lading.¹

Stevedore raises a material issue of fact as to whether or not it is entitled to limitation of liability under the applicable provisions of the bill of lading, which provided as follows:

"2. * * * the word `carrier' shall include the ship, her owner, operator, demise charterer, time charterer, master and any substituted carrier, whether acting as carrier or bailee, and all persons rendering services in connection with performance of this contract; * * *" (Italic the court's.)

"13. In case of any loss or damage to or in connection with goods exceeding in actual value $500, lawful money of the United States per package, or, in case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, the value of the goods shall be deemed to be $500 per package or per unit, * * * unless the nature of the goods and a valuation higher than $500 shall have been declared in writing by the shipper upon delivery to the carrier and inserted in this bill of lading and extra freight paid if required; and in such case if the actual value of the goods per package or per customary freight unit shall exceed such declared value, the value shall nevertheless be deemed the declared value and the carrier's liability in any capacity, if any, shall not exceed the declared value. * * *"

The stevedore contends that it is entitled to the benefits of the limitation of liability clauses as a person rendering services in connection with the performance of the contract embodied in the bill of lading. Libelants, on the other hand, argue that the law is well settled that the benefits of a limitation...