Perils Of The Sea Case Study

1477 Words3 Pages

PROVING ‘PERILS OF THE SEA’
The burden of proof as regards proving damages caused due to perils of the sea is always on the insurer. The insurer has to prove on a balance of probabilities that the ship was lost or damaged as the case may be, due to perils of the sea.
The Courts in various cases have stated that the mere proof of incursion of seawater into the insured vessel leading to its demise, is not sufficient to prove the presence of ‘perils of the sea’. It is so because mere entry of seawater in not a peril of the sea, but it has to be shown that the incursion was accidental or fortuitous.
The House of Lords in the famous case of Rhesa Shipping Co. S.A. v. Herbert David Edmunds, was faced with a situation where during a voyage on calm
This attention has garnered the interest of law and was the reason for national laws and international conventions to govern the shipping industry in general and seaworthiness in particular. This has resulted in some confusion as to whether seaworthiness means the same in different branches of Maritime Law. This section will deal with the relevance of seaworthiness in different branches of Maritime Law, its meaning and nature. It is the duty of the carrier to provide a seaworthy vessel. Although, not required in all seafaring activities, it still has a serious impact on different aspects of maritime law, e.g. Marine Insurance, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Salvage, etc. Hence, the definition of the term is important to define the term, and its different aspects, so as to recognize the consequences of the compliance with or the breach of such a duty.

Importance of the duty under Carriage of Goods by seaworthy; failing to do so will have a serious implication on his right to claim compensation for the loss he suffered. But does the meaning of seaworthiness under Marine Insurance differ from the one used for Carriage by Sea? The Marine Insurance Act states in Section 39(4) thus ‘A ship is deemed to be seaworthy when she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas of the adventure insured’. The section did not specifically point out what seaworthiness should include, it preferred to say instead that the ship should be reasonably fit in all respects. The reason behind this is explained by the drafter of the Act, Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, who said: “the words ‘in all respects’, in Section 39(4) include ‘manning, equipment and stowage’, but these additional words were cut out in the Lords, being regarded as unnecessary and probably restrictive”
While the Act used broad terms to define seaworthiness, it left to the courts the job of identifying what is a seaworthy vessel, according to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. In one of the early cases on this issue, Dixon v. Sadler , seaworthiness of the vessel was defined thus: “she (the vessel) shall be in a fit state as to repairs, equipment,

Open Document