8/10/2019 Home+Insurance+Co+v.+American+Steamship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeinsurancecovamericansteamship 1/1

Home Insurance Company V. American Steamship Agencies1  |Bengzon, J. (1968)

RATIO DECIDENDI

As a private carrier a stipu!ation e"empting the o#ner $rom!ia%i!ity $or the neg!igence o$ its agent is not against pu%!ic po!icy

an& is &eeme& va!i&.

'ACTS

• Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South !eric" shi##ed freight "t

$1, %&' ute "gs of Peru*i"n fish !e"l. +he c"rgo "s consignedto S"n -iguel Breer "nd insured /o!e 0nsur"nce Co!#"n.

• 0t "rri*ed in -"nil" on -"rch % "nd "s disch"rged into the

lighters of uzon Ste*edoring Co!#"n.o 2hen the c"rgo "s deli*ered to S"n -iguel there "s

shortages amounting to (H( 1)*++.,-.o /o!e 0nsur"nce #"id S"n -iguel.

• /o!e 0nsur"nce, "s surogee, then sued uzon Ste*edoring

Co!#"n "nd !eric"n Ste"!shi# gencies.• !eric"n Ste"!shi# denied li"ilit on the ground.

o 0t contended th"t under the #ro*isions of the Ch"rter

#"rt the charterer not the shipo#ner #asresponsi%!e for "n loss or d"!"ge to the c"rgo.

o 0t "lso cl"i!ed to h"*e e3ercised due diligence in the

stoing of the goods.

ISSE/HE0D

oN the stipu!ation in the charter party o$ the o#ner2s non3!ia%i!ityis va!i& so as to a%so!ve the American Steamship Agencies $rom!ia%i!ity $or !oss 4 YES 

 RATIO

• #erus"l of the ch"rter #"rt shos th"t hile the #ossession "nd

control of the shi# ere not entirel tr"nsferred to the ch"rterer,the *essel "s ch"rtered to its full "nd co!#lete c"#"cit.

• +he ch"rter #"rt is one o$ a$$reightment over the #ho!e

vesse! r"ther th"n " de!ise.o s such, the li"ilit of the shi# oner for "cts or

negligence of its c"#t"in "nd cre, #ou!& remain in thea%sence o$ stipu!ation.

• +he ch"rter #"rt #ro*ides th"t the oner is li"le for loss or

d"!"ge to the goods c"used #erson"l "nt of due diligence on

1 P+ /4574

its #"rt or its !"n"ger to !"e the *essel in "ll res#ectsse"orth.

o S"id #"r"gr"#h, hoe*er, e"empts the o#ner o$ the

vesse! $rom any !oss or &amage or &e!ay arising$rom any other source e*en fro! the neglect or f"ultof the c"#t"in or cre or so!e other #erson e!#loed

the oner on o"rd.• co!!on c"rrier un&erta5ing to carry a specia! cargo or

chartere& to a specia! person on!y %ecomes a privatecarrier.

o s " #ri*"te c"rrier, " stipu!ation e"empting the oner

fro! li"ilit for the negligence of its "gent is notagainst pu%!ic po!icy an& is &eeme& va!i&.

o +he Ci*il Code #ro*isions on co!!on c"rriers should not

e "##lied here the c"rrier is not "cting "s such ut "s" #ri*"te c"rrier.

• +he sti#ul"tion in the ch"rter #"rt "sol*ing the oner fro!

li"ilit for loss due to the negligence of its "gent ould e voi&on!y i$ the strict pu%!ic po!icy governing common carriers isapp!ie&.

o Such #olic h"s no force here the #ulic "t l"rge is notin*ol*ed.

C$'1$ 70:4S+ :5;<P | 4:;+0B4 0S+5<-4+S 2 =><4P"ge 1 of 1