Ralli v. Troop
157 U.S. 386, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2213, 15 S. Ct. 657 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sacrifice of ship or cargo does not qualify for general average contribution unless it is a voluntary act made by the master of the vessel, or someone acting under his authority, for the sole purpose of preserving the common maritime adventure. A compulsory sacrifice made by public municipal authorities, acting under their own judgment and not as agents for the vessel, does not give rise to a general average claim.
Facts:
- The bark J.W. Parker was moored in the port of Calcutta with a cargo of jute belonging to Ralli Brothers.
- A fire broke out in the ship's hold.
- The ship's mate sounded an alarm, and crews from neighboring vessels began pouring water into the hold to fight the fire.
- The port authorities of Calcutta then arrived with their own fire engines, took control of the vessel from the mate, and moved it aground.
- The ship's master returned to find the port authorities in charge.
- The master wished to continue unloading more of the jute cargo, but the port authorities forbade and prevented him from doing so, fearing it would worsen the fire.
- Acting on their own judgment, the port authorities extinguished the fire by scuttling the vessel (deliberately sinking it by filling it with water).
- The scuttling effectively destroyed the ship, but the remaining cargo was saved, albeit in a damaged condition.
Procedural Posture:
- The owners of the cargo, Ralli Brothers, filed a libel in a U.S. District Court against the owners of the bark J.W. Parker, seeking a general average contribution for damage to their cargo.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the cargo owners.
- The ship owners appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that the cargo owners were entitled to a general average contribution, and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The ship owners then appealed the decision of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the scuttling of a ship by municipal port authorities, acting on their own authority and not under the direction of the ship's master to extinguish a fire, give rise to a claim for general average contribution for the resulting damage to the ship and cargo?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gray
No. The scuttling of the ship by municipal port authorities does not give rise to a claim for general average contribution. The law of general average is part of maritime law, not municipal law, and requires a voluntary sacrifice of part of a common maritime adventure, made for the purpose of saving the other parts. Crucially, this sacrifice must be made by the master of the vessel or someone acting under his authority as the designated agent for all interests in the adventure. The port authorities are strangers to the maritime adventure; they act under a public duty to protect the entire port, not solely to save the specific ship and cargo. Their action was a compulsory sacrifice imposed by a paramount public authority, not a voluntary act by an agent of the adventure, and therefore falls outside the doctrine of general average.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brown
Yes. A sacrifice made by a lawful authority for the common safety of the ship and cargo should be subject to general average contribution, regardless of whether that authority is the ship's master or a public official. The key principle of natural justice is that parties who receive a common benefit from a sacrifice should contribute to the loss. The port authorities did exactly what the master would have done, but more effectively, and it is inequitable for the cargo owners to escape contribution because a more efficient public agency intervened for their benefit. A person exercising the lawful authority of a master, even by operation of law, should be considered the master for the purposes of binding the vessel and cargo to a general average act.
Analysis:
This decision strictly defines the boundaries of the general average doctrine by emphasizing that the identity and authority of the decision-maker are critical. The Court established that the sacrifice must be a voluntary act by the master, acting as an agent for the common adventure, not a compulsory act by an outside party, even a public authority. This reinforces the principle that general average is an internal rule of maritime law governing the relationships between parties to a specific voyage. The ruling narrows the scope of general average by excluding losses caused by the intervention of public officials, thereby requiring parties to a maritime adventure to bear such losses individually or seek other remedies.
