Sedco, Inc. v. SS STRATHEWE, 83 Civ. 3298 (RO).

• Citation: 630 F. Supp. 120
• Decision Date: 15 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 83 Civ. 3298 (RO).,83 Civ. 3298 (RO).
• Parties: SEDCO INC., Plaintiff, v. S.S. STRATHEWE, her engines, boilers, etc., the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited, and Strick Line Ltd., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

630 F. Supp. 120

SEDCO INC., Plaintiff, v. S.S. STRATHEWE, her engines, boilers, etc., the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited, and Strick Line Ltd., Defendants.

No. 83 Civ. 3298 (RO).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

January 15, 1986.

Hill, Rivkins, Carey, Loesberg, O'Brien & Mulroy, New York City (Alan Loesberg, Anthony J. Pruzinsky, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City (Donald Burke, Keith Heard, of counsel), for defendants.

OPINION

OWEN, District Judge.

In early June 1982, the defendants, hereafter collectively "P & O" for The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and its vessels, received from plaintiff Sedco Inc. in Saudi Arabia 18 packages containing oil field drilling equipment to be shipped to Houston, Texas. These were placed aboard one of P & O's vessels called the Strathewe. Within a few days of the vessel's departure, the British Government, embroiled in the Falkland Islands war, requisitioned the vessel under its war powers and directed that the vessel proceed directly to Southampton, England to be fitted out for war service. The British Government, aware that the vessel was carrying cargo, directed the vessel be delivered without the cargo, but it did not instruct P & O how to accomplish this. P & O, having determined that the island of Malta in the Mediterranean was not only on the course to Southampton but also on the course of one of its other vessels coming by at a later time en route to Houston, took the reasonable action of off-loading the said 18 units (17 boxes and one loose package) at Malta along with other cargo destined for the United States.

However P & O did not notify the plaintiff in any way that the cargo had been off-loaded. Indeed the plaintiff, having a buyer for the equipment, and expecting the Strathewe to arrive approximately the end of July, began inquiring of P & O in mid-July as to the vessel's arrival. The plaintiff was told the cargo would arrive aboard the Strathewe on August 24, although the fact was that the Strathewe had already discharged the plaintiff's cargo at Malta on June 12. It was not until August 4, upon plaintiff's third inquiry, that P & O told it that (a) the cargo had, in fact, been offloaded in Malta and (b) that the cargo had been reloaded on the Strathesk which had left Malta the day before. The Strathesk thereafter arrived in Houston on August 30th, but unhappily whereas 18 pieces had been offloaded in Malta and the manifest stated that 18 pieces had been reloaded on the Strathesk, in fact only 16 pieces had been reloaded on the Strathesk, the other 2 pieces having been left on the pier in Malta.¹ And while an extensive search was made at many ports including Malta, the 2 missing boxes were not relocated on the pier at Malta until 1984 by which time the ability to complete the delivery and sale of the merchandise had long since passed. The equipment was thereafter sold for salvage.

P & O takes two positions: first, that it is entitled to immunity from suit because of the requisition of the Strathewe under the "restraint of princes" exclusion under COGSA, 46 U.S.C. § 1304(2)(g). Second, it contends that the $500 package limitation contained in § 1304(5) is applicable and therefore its responsibility in any event cannot exceed $1,000.

While it is unquestionably so that the Strathewe was "restrained" or requisitioned by the Crown for the Falkland Islands' conflict, the restraint was only of the vessel. Thus, it does not flow from this fact alone that P & O is discharged from liability, since the restraint did not eliminate either legally or factually P & O's ability and duty to "properly and carefully ... handle and care for ... the goods." 46 U.S.C....