Flint v. Christall/Opinion of the Court

by George Shiras, Jr.

United States Supreme Court

171 U.S. 187

Flint  v.  Christall

The answer we shall give to the question certified by the circuit court of appeals must be determined by the meaning and effect which should be given to the act of February 13, 1893, known as the 'Harter Act.' Admittedly, upon the facts conceded to exist in the present case, the owner of the ship has no right to a general average contribution from the cargo, unless such right arises from the operation of that act.

We shall first inquire why it is that, apart from the act in question, the owner of the ship is not entitled to a general average contribution where the loss was occasioned by the fault of the master or crew; and we find the rule is founded on the principle that no one can make a claim for general average contribution if the danger to avert which the sacrifice was made has arisen from the fault of the claimant or of some one for whose acts the claimant has made himself or is made by law responsible to the co-contributors. We are not called upon either to trace the history of the rule, or to justify it as based on equitable principles, as it is conceded on both sides that such is the ordinary rule in the absence of statute or contract to modify it.

Nor is it necessary to inquire into the origin or nature of the law of general average. That has been so recently and thoroughly done in Ralli v. Troop, 157 U.S. 386, 15 Sup. Ct. 657, that it is sufficient to refer to the opinion of Mr. Justice Gray in that case.

Not only is the ship owner excluded from contribution by way of general average when the loss arises from the ship's fault, but he is legally responsible to the owner of the cargo for loss and damages so occasioned. And it is the well settled law of this court that a common carrier by sea cannot, by any stipulation with a shipper of goods, exempt himself from responsibility for loss or damage arising from the negligence of the officers or crew; that it is against the policy of the law to allow stipulations that will relieve a carrier from liability for losses caused by the negligence of himself or his servants. Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469.

Further, it has frequently been decided by this court that in every contract for the carriage of goods by sea, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, there is a warranty on the part of the ship owner that the ship is seaworthy at the time of beginning her voyage, and not merely that he does not know her to be unseaworthy at the time of beginning her voyage, or that he has used his best efforts to make her seaworthy; and that his undertaking is not discharged because the want of fitness is the result of latent defects. Richelieu & O. Nav. Co. v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 136 U.S. 408, 10 Sup. Ct. 934; The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.S. 199, 14 Sup. Ct. 823; The Caledonia, 157 U.S. 124, 15 Sup. Ct. 537.

In this condition of the law the so-called 'Harter Act' was approved on February 13, 1893 (27 Stat. c. 105), wherein, after providing, in the first and second sections, that it shall not be lawful for any owner, agent, or master of any vessel transporting merchandise or property from or between ports oft he United States and foreign ports to exempt himself from liability for loss or damage arising from negligence in the loading or proper delivery of such property, or to insert in any bill of lading any covenant or agreement whereby the obligations of the owner to exercise due diligence in manning and equipping the vessel, and to make such vessel seaworthy and capable of performing her intended voyage, should be in anywise lessened, weakened, or avoided, it was, in the third section, enacted as follows:

'That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agents or charterers, shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel, nor shall the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, or master, be held liable for losses arising from the danger of the sea or other navigable waters, acts of God or public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of package, or seizure under legal process, or for loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or from saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or from any deviation in rendering such service.'

The argument on behalf of the ship owner is clearly expressed by the learned judge of the district court in the following terms:

'There is no doubt, I think, that the liability to indemnify the cargo owner is the sole ground of the exclusion of the ship owner's claim to general average compensation for his expenses in rescuing the adventure from a peril caused by bad navigation. It therefore seems necessarily to follow that in cases where all such liability is abolished by law, as it is under the circumstances of this case by the Harter act, no such exclusion can be justified; and that, where no such liability exists on the part of the ship or her owner, his right to a general average contribution from the cargo arises necessarily by the same principles of equitable right that apply in ordinary cases of general average. Where due diligence has been exercised to make the ship seaworthy, and a common danger arises upon the voyage by 'fault or error in the navigation or management of the ship,' the third section of that act declares that 'neither the vessel nor her owner, agent or charterer shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting therefrom.' The previous liability of the ship owner to the cargo owner for faults of navigation is thus abolished in all cases coming within the act. In such cases faults in the navigation or management of the ship are no longer, by construction of law, faults of the owner, as heretofore; and the ship and her owner are now no more liable to the cargo owner for his damages therefrom than the latter is liable to the ship owner for the resulting damages to the ship. Both are alike strangers to the fault, and equally free from all responsibility for it; and hence all expenditures or losses voluntarily incurred for the common rescue are no longer made in the discharge of an individual legal obligation, or in diminution of a fixed liability resting upon one of the parties only, but are truly a sacrifice, voluntarily incurred, and for the common benefit, as much and as truly so when made by the ship owner as when made by the cargo owner alone. On principle, therefore, in such cases, the one is as much entitled to a general average contribution for his sacrifice as the other.' 'The application of this new relation of nonresponsibility under the Harter act to cases of general average does not, in fact, make the least change in the principles of general average contribution. The rule remains as before,-that he by whose fault, actul or constructive, the ship and cargo have been brought into danger, cannot recover an average contribution for his expenses in extricating them. And so the counter rule remains as before,-that the interest which, being without fault, makes sacrifices for the common rescue, is entitled to an average contribution from what is thereby saved. Prior to the Harter act, the ship owner, under our law, was constructively in fault for bad navigation, and hence fell within the former rule. The Harter act, by abolishing his constructive fault, and freeing him from all responsibility, withdraws him from the former rule, and entitles him to contribution under the latter.' 82 Fed. 472, 474-477.

We are unable to accept this view of the operation of the act of congress.

Plainly, the main purposes of the act were to relieve the ship owner from liability for latent defects, not discoverable by the utmost care and diligence, and, in event that he has exercised due diligence to make his vessel seaworthy, to exempt him and the ship from responsibility for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel. But can we go further, and say that it was the intention of the act to allow the owner to share in the benefits of a general average contribution to meet losses occasioned by faults in the navigation and management of the ship?

Doubtless, as the law stood before the passage of the act, the owner could not contract against his liability and that of his vessel for loss occasioned by negligence or fault in the officers and crew, because such a contract was held by the federal courts to be contrary to public policy; and, in this particular, the owners of American vessels were at a disadvantage as compared with the owners of foreign vessels, who can contract with shippers against any liability for negligence or fault on the part of the officers and crew. This inequality, of course, operated unfavorably on the American ship owner; and congress thought fit to remove the disadvantage, not by declaring that it should be competent for the owners of vessels to exempt themselves from liability for the faults of the master and crew by stipulations to that effect contained in bills of lading, but by enacting that, if the owners exercised due diligence in making their ships seaworthy and in duly manning and equipping them, there should be no liability for the navigation and management of the ships, however faulty.

Although the foundation of the rule that forbade ship owners to contract for exemption from liability for negligence in their agents and employees was in the decisions of the courts that such contracts were against public policy, it was, nevertheless, competent for congress to make a change in the standard of duty; and it is plainly the duty of the courts to conform in their decisions to the policy so declared.

But we think that for the courts to declare, as a consequence of this legislation, that the ship owner is not only relieved from liability for the negligence of his servants, but is entitled to share in a general average rendered necessary by that negligence, would be in the nature of a legislative act. The act in question does, undoubtedly, modify the public policy as previously declared by the courts; but, if congress had intended to grant the further privilege now contended for, it would have expressed such an intention in unmistakable terms. It is one thing to exonerate the ship and its owner from liability for the negligence of those who manage the vessel; it is another thing to authorize the ship owner to do what he could not do before, namely, share in the general average occasioned by the mismanagement of the master and crew.

What was the reasoning on which the courts proceeded in holding that it was against public policy to permit ship owners to contract for exemption from liability for the negligence of their agents? Was it not that such a state of the law would impel the ship owners to exercise care in the selection o those for whose conduct they were to be responsible? This being so, can it be reasonably inferred that congress intended, when relieving ship owners from liability for the misconduct of their agents, to confer upon them the further right to participate in a general average contribution, and that to the detriment of the shippers? Such an interpretation of the statute would tend to relieve ship owners, to some extent at least, from care in the selection of the master and crew; and it would likewise operate to influence the master in deciding, in an emergency, whether he would make a case of general average by sacrificing the vessel, in whole or in part. If he knew that the owner would participate in a contribution occasioned by a loss, he would be the less likely to exert himself and crew to avoid the loss.

It is said that it has been decided by the English courts that when, by a contract in the bill of lading, the ship owner is exonerated from liability for loss caused by the fault of the master or crew, he is entitled to share in a general average contribution.

An examination of the cases cited has not convinced us that there has been any such final decision by the English courts. The case of The Carron Park, 15 Prob. Div. 203, does, indeed, hold that the relation of the goods owner to the ship owner was altered by the contract; that the ship owner was not to be responsible for the negligence of his servants in the events which have happened; and that, therefore, the ship owner's claim for general average was allowed. On the other hand, in the case of The Ettrick, 6 Prob. Div. 127, the ship owner claimed the benefit of a general average contribution rendered necessary by reason of negligence in navigation, and put his claim on the ground that, having availed himself of the limited liability laws by paying into court the 8 a ton, which is the limitation fixed by the statutes of Great Britain, he was thereby relieved from his liability on account of the negligence in the navigation, and stood in the position of an innocent party entitled to share in the contribution. But the court of appeals held otherwise, and Sir George Jessel, M. R., said:

'The ground upon which the ship owner puts his claim is this: He says that the payment of 8 per ton not only prevents his being answerable in damages for any more, but is equivalent to saying that he shall be in exactly the same position as if no negligence had been committed, and nothing had been done by him or his agents that would give rise to any liability. But I cannot read the act so. All it says is that he shall not be answerable in damages for any greater amount. It does not make his acts right if they were previously wrongful. It does not give him any new rights as far as I can see. * * * It seems to me that he could have no such right, for the statute does not destroy the effect of all that had been done, as it simply diminishes or limits the liability in damages. If that is so, of course there is an end of the case.'

But, whatever may be the English rulings as to the effect of contract immunity from negligence as entitling the ship owner to claim in general average, we do not think the cases are parallel. By the English law the parties are left free to contract with each other, and each party can define his rights and limit his liability as he may think fit. Very different is the case where a statute prescribes the extent of liability and exemption.

Upon the whole, we think that, in determining the effect of this statute in restricting the operation of general and well-settled principles, our proper course is to treat those principles as still existing, and to limit the relief from their operation afforded by the statute to that called for by the language itself of the statute.

Our conclusion accordingly is that the question certified to us by the court of appeals should be answered in the negative, and it is so ordered.

Notes