ISSUE: whether the owners of the vessel "Maltasian" , to whom were consigned 1,200 cases of wet salted ling fillets for carriage from Glasgow to Genoa, are responsible for the deterioration of that consignment during the voyage.
FACTS:
A firm of fishcurers in Aberdeen, UK consigned cases of wet salted ling fillets to merchants in Genoa, Italy. The cases were shipped from Glasgow, UK to Genoa, Italy in September 1961 on the vessel called "Maltasian" . The voyage took from 16th to 28th September, the ship calling at Swansea and Marseilles en route before arrival at Genoa. During the voyage the fish deteriorated where it found that be affected by a form of bacterial contamination known as "reddening" and cause some of the consignment was unmerchantable. The "reddening" of the fish apparent on unloading at Genoa was caused by the action of halophilic bacteria. These bacteria are present in the tissues of all salt water fish but remain inactive during the lifetime of the fish. The bacteria remain inactive and unharmful after the fish are dead unless the fish are kept in conditions favourable to the multiplication of the bacteria. These conditions are:
(a) exposure to temperatures above 5 <<degrees>> C or 41 << degrees>> F;
(b) the presence of salt in solution to the extent of 20 per cent or 30 per cent; and
(c) access to oxygen.
*the bacteria are present in solar salt, but not in mined or rock salt.
No special instructions as to the method of storing, carrying or caring for the cargo were given by the appellants to the respondents other than the stencilling on the boxes advising that “stowage should be away from engines or boilers” and this was complied with. The respondents' officers were not aware of the conditions in which the halophilic bacteria are activated. On board the "Maltasian" the temperature in the hold in which the boxes were stowed or any other hold on board could not have been kept below 5 <<degrees>> C or 41 <<degrees>> F during the voyage to Genoa and temperatures considerably in excess of such levels were actually experienced on the voyage. Plus, The fish itself (not the salt) contained dormant bacilli which unavoidably became activated when the temperature rose above 41 <<degrees>> F. Therefore, since the ship was not refrigerated, damage was bound to occur.
It was established in evidence that there was serious risk of deterioration unless the fish were kept at a temperature below 41 <<degrees>> F. In other words, that the only safe or proper way of carrying them was in some refrigerated chamber on board; although it was obvious that there was no such chamber.
So, whether in such circumstances the owners were liable for breach of Article III 2 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924.
Therefore due to the deterioration of the cargo, the Genoese merchants sued the owners of the "Maltasian" for damages. The hold of the "Maltasian" was not refrigerated and no special instructions were given to the defenders by the consignors. The evidence absolved the ship's officers from negligence. The pursuers(Genoese Merchants) maintained that the defenders(shipowner) were in breach of Article III 2 of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924, that "properly" meant in the appropriate manner looking to the actual nature of the consignment notwithstanding that neither the shipowners nor the ship's officers knew, nor could have discovered, that special treatment was necessary.
JUDGMENT:
Lord Pearson:
It is an obligation to carry out certain operations properly and carefully. The fact that goods, acknowledged in the bill of lading to have been received on board in apparent good order and condition, arrived at the destination in a damaged condition does not in itself constitute a breach of the obligation, though it may well be in many cases sufficient to raise an inference of a breach of the obligation. The cargo owner is not expected to know what happened on the voyage, and, if he shows that the goods arrived in a damaged condition and there is no evidence from the shipowner showing that the goods were duly cared for on the voyage, the court may well infer that the goods were not properly cared for on the voyage.
The appeal was dismissed and Respondent was not liable.
Held, (affirming interlocutor of First Division) that having regard to the word "properly" the obligation imposed upon shipowners by Article III 2 was to adopt a system which was sound in light of all the knowledge which the carrier had or ought to have had about the nature of the goods, that the defenders had no reason to suppose that the goods required any different treatment from that which they in fact received, that the defenders adopted a sound system, that the effect of Article IV 2 (m) was that the carrier was not responsible if the cargo deteriorated in condition by "inherent vice" -- which connoted the cargo's own want of power to bear the kind of transit which the contract required the carrier to provide -- and that the defenders were entitled to decree of absolvitor.
