May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft
1933 U.S. LEXIS 949, 54 S. Ct. 162, 290 U.S. 333 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Harter Act, a shipowner's duty to exercise due diligence to make a vessel seaworthy reattaches at each stage of a voyage where the owner intervenes and resumes control. Failure to meet this condition bars the owner from the statutory exemption for losses due to negligent navigation, regardless of whether a causal link exists between the unseaworthiness and the loss.
Facts:
- The vessel 'Isis', owned by Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft, departed from the Pacific coast in a seaworthy condition, destined for European ports.
- In the Weser River near Bremen, Germany, the Isis stranded due to negligent navigation, damaging its rudder.
- At the port of Bremen, the owner's marine superintendent personally supervised an inspection of the damage.
- The inspection, conducted inadequately, failed to discover a five-degree bend in the rudder blade, a defect that a reasonably careful inspection would have revealed.
- To save time and expense, the owner's superintendent decided against making full repairs in Bremen, where facilities were available, and ordered the ship to proceed to Hamburg.
- With its damaged rudder lashed in place, the Isis was taken under tow by three tugs for the voyage to Hamburg.
- During this voyage, the vessel stranded a second time due to the pilot's negligent navigation at excessive speed, causing significant new damage.
- The shipowner demanded that the cargo owners make general average contributions to cover the expenses from the second stranding.
Procedural Posture:
- The assignee of the cargo owners, May, filed libels in admiralty against the shipowner in the U.S. District Court to recover deposits made for general average contributions.
- The District Court, confirming a commissioner's report, entered a judgment for the defendant shipowner.
- The libellant, May, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The libellant, May, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Harter Act, does a shipowner's failure to exercise due diligence to make a vessel seaworthy at an intermediate port of call bar the owner from the statutory exemption for losses resulting from negligent navigation, regardless of whether a causal connection exists between the unseaworthiness and the loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cardozo
Yes. A shipowner's failure to exercise due diligence to make a vessel seaworthy at an intermediate port bars the owner from the statutory exemption for losses resulting from negligent navigation, irrespective of causation. The Harter Act's exemption from liability for navigational errors is a conditional privilege, not an absolute right. While the warranty of seaworthiness typically attaches at the commencement of a voyage, the statutory duty to exercise due diligence is renewed whenever the shipowner intervenes and resumes control, effectively breaking the voyage into stages. Here, the owner's superintendent made the decision in Bremen to send the ship onward in a damaged state; this was not a mere error in 'management' by the crew but a failure by the owner to fulfill a personal duty. Because the owner failed to exercise due diligence in making the Isis seaworthy for the trip from Bremen, the owner forfeited the conditional statutory immunity for the subsequent navigational error. The court does not need to inquire whether the unseaworthiness caused the loss, as the due diligence obligation is a strict condition precedent to claiming the exemption.
Dissenting - Justice McReynolds and Justice Butler
No. The dissenters briefly stated that the Court of Appeals' decree, which had affirmed judgment for the shipowner, was correct and should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the Harter Act's due diligence requirement is not merely a one-time obligation at a voyage's outset but can reattach at intermediate ports under the 'doctrine of stages,' particularly when the owner directly intervenes. It decisively establishes that the due diligence obligation is a strict condition precedent to invoking the Act's liability exemptions. By rejecting a causation requirement, the Court places a heavy and continuous burden on shipowners to ensure seaworthiness, thereby strengthening protections for cargo owners against losses stemming from a combination of unseaworthiness and navigational negligence.
Unlock the full brief for May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft