« ПретходнаНастави »
the risk will continue till she is anchored at her port of destination, in the usual place for discharging cargo; but it will then immediately determine (-).
If a vessel be insured for a voyage from or to a district having several ports, or if she be insured to ports of discharge which are not specified in the policy, the ports must be visited in their geographical order considered from the port of departure; unless it is otherwise stipulated by the parties executing the policy (y).
CASE. A policy was effected on freight valued at 5007. on a voyage at and from Demerara, Berbice, &c., to London. When at Demerara the master of the ship contracted for a freight from Berbice to London, the cargo to be loaded at Berbice, and the ship to take a cargo of bricks and planks from Demerara to Berbice, and deliver them there. During the voyage to Berbice with the bricks and planks on board, the vessel ran foul of another ship, and no freight was earned. Held, that the underwriters were not liable (z).
(2) Stone v. Marine Insurance Co. of Gothenburg, 1 Ex. D. 81; and see § 145, p. 245.
(y) Beatson y. Haworth, 6 T. R.
531 ; Clason v. Simmonds, 6 T. R. 533, n.
(3) Sellar v. M l'icar, 1 B. & P. N. R. 23.
DURATION OF THE RISK.
$ 145. The risk of the underwriters is as a rule limited to cease Duration of when the ship has been moored “for twenty-four hours in the risk on a
. good safety,” at the port at which she is intended to unload. The ship will not be considered to have been moored in good safety for twenty-four hours unless(1.) She could after being moored keep afloat during
the discharge of her cargo (a).
jected to an embargo, seizure or capture (6); and
But if after continuing in safety for twenty-four hours
(a) Shawe v. Felton, 2 East, 109 ;
“ Cases " (1) at end of this į; and see Arnould, Mar. Ins. pt. i. ch. 9.
(b) Lockyer v. Ofey, 1 T. R. 252.
(c) Angerstein v. Bell, 1 Park, 55; Samuel v. Royal Ex. Co., 8 B. & Cr.
119: Lidgett v. Secretan, L. R., 5
(2) at end of this s.
(d) Share v. Felton, 2 East, 109; see “ Cases" (1) at end of this g.
(c) Minett v. Anderson, 1 Peake's Rep. 277.
from her arrival the ship be lost, even though on account of an act performed during the voyage, e.g., on account of smuggling (f); or if the words “good safety" be not inserted in the policy; the underwriters will be released from all risk at the expiration of the twenty-four hours, whatever the condition of the vessel.
Where by the terms of a policy the risk is to continue “until the ship be discharged from her voyage,” the underwriters' liability in respect of any loss of or damage to the ship will not determine till the goods have been unshipped (9).
If a ship definitely and completely abandons the voyage insured, the underwriters become immediately discharged from any liability on the policy. But if she does not definitely and completely abandon the prosecution of the voyage, but only lies by for a time, c.g., for repairs, the risk will not be immediately determined but will continue till she reach her ultimate destination ().
In cases where the ship cannot safely enter her port of destination, though she might put into a friendly port adjoining her port of destination, but instead of doing so she sails back for her port of outfit and is lost, the voyage will be deemed to have been abandoned, and the underwriters will be discharged (i).
Cases. 1. A. ship insured arrived in port at Demerara a mere wreck, and had to be lashed to a hulk to prevent her sinking. A few days afterwards, while her crew were attempting to remove her to the shore, she sank. Held, that the underwriter was liable (k).
2. A ship was insured at and from London to Calcutta, and for thirty days after arrival, until she had been moored twenty-four hours in good safety. During the voyage she was so damaged that constant pumping was required to keep her afloat; but she reached Calcutta and was moored there on 28th October, 1866, in
(f) Lockyer v. Ofley, 1 T. R. 12 East, 283; and see § 142, p. 240. 252 ; Angerstein v. Bell, i Park, 55. (i) Blackenhagen v. London Ass. (9) Com. Dig. Merc. E.
Co., 1 Camp. 454. (1) Blackenhagen v. London Ass. (k) Shawe v. Felton, 2 East, 109. Co., 1 Camp. 454 ; Brown v. Vigne,
DURATION OF THE RISK.
safety. By the 8th November her cargo was safely unloaded. On the 5th December she was destroyed by an accidental fire, having been on the 12th November removed from her moorings to a dry dock for repair. Held, that as the vessel had been moored for twenty-four hours as a ship, and not as a mere wreck, she had been moored twenty-four hours in good safety, and that over thirty days having elapsed, the underwriters were not liable (?).
$ 146. In the case of a policy on goods the risk commences to Duration of run as soon as the goods are shipped; consequently they goodsinsured.
the are not protected while being conveyed from the wharf or quay in lighters to the ship unless such protection be expressly stipulated for in the policy (mn).
A policy at and from a specified port made in the ordinary form (n), will only protect goods shipped on board at the port specified, in the absence of any mercantile custom or usage (o). However, the commencement and termination of the risk may be varied by the usage of any particular port (p).
The risk on the goods is generally limited, by the policy, to run“ until the goods be discharged and safely landed.”
The underwriter, on such a limitation, will continue liable till the goods are landed at the usual wharves or quays of the port of discharge, although the loss occurred after the goods were transhipped into lighters, shallops, &c. according to the usual custom (1) prevailing at the port of discharge. The underwriters, however, will be released from all liability if the insured had at the time of the loss taken possession of the goods or interfered with them in any way (r).
(1) Lidgett v. Secretan, L. R., 5 Camp. 200 ; see “Cases" (4) at end C. P. 190.
of this §. (m) Hurry v. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., (1) Stewart v. Bell, 5 B. & Ald. 2 B. & P. 430.
238; see “ Cases" (1) at end of (n) See § 132, p. 220.
this $; Matthie v. Potts, 3 B. & P. (6) Constable v. Noble, 2 Taunt. 23; Rucker v. London Ass. Co., 2 403; Payne v. Hutchinson, 2 Taunt.
B. & P. 432, n. 405, n.
(r) Sparrow v. Caruthers, 2 Str. (P) Kingston v. Knibbs, 1 Camp. 1236; Strong v. Natally, 1 B. & P. 508, n.; Lindsay v. Janson, 4 H. N. R. 16 ; see“ Cases" (2) and (3) & N. 699; Mocon v. Atkins, 3 at end of this s.
As soon as the goods are landed, the risk is, in the absence of some express stipulation (r), at an end; for a marine policy only covers sea risks. However, if the goods are landed only for a temporary purpose, or if when landed they are protected by the custom of the trade, the underwriters will not be discharged from their liability (s).
CASES. 1. Certain goods, insured from London to Jamaica generally, were destined to a particular place in the island. The usual course in such cases was for the ship to go to an adjoining port, and there to tranship the cargo into shallops. Held, the underwriters, though they had no notice of this, were liable for a loss occurring after such transhipment on board the shallops ().
2. Goods were insured to London, and until the same should be safely landed there. On the arrival of the ship in the port of London, the owner of the goods sent his lighter, and received them out of the ship. Before the goods reached the land they were damaged by an accident. Held, the underwriter was not liable for such damage (u).
3. A cargo of fish was insured from Shetland to London until discharged and safely landed. On the ship's arrival at London the fish were placed on board a lighter and brought to the insured's wharf in the evening, but not landed on account of the rough weather. The insured then agreed to see to the landing himself; but during the night the lighter was by an unavoidable accident sunk, and the fish lost. Held, that the underwriters were not liable (0)
4. Goods were insured “at and from the ship's loading port or ports in Amelia Island to London.” The ship never touched at Amelia Island, but loaded her cargo at Tigre Island, which lies farther up the river S. Mary (in America) than Amelia Island. This was the usual way in which ships in that trade loaded their cargoes. Held, that the policy attached (y).
5. A policy on a ship was effected at and from London to China and back. · When the ship was at Canton, her sails and furniture
(-) Rodocanachi v. Elliott, L. R., 9 C. P. 618 (S. C.); Harrison v. Ellis, 7 E. & B. 465; 26 L. J., Q. B. 239.
(8) Pelly v. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 1 Burr. 341; see “Cases" (5) at end of this Ø ; Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. R. 206.
(1) Sterart v. Bell, 5 B. & Ald. 238.
(2) Sparrow v. Caruthers, 2 Str. 1236.
(9) Strong v. Natally, 1 B. & P. N. R. 16.
(y) Moxon v. Atkins, 3 Camp. 200.