미국 연방대법원의 Kirby 사건 판결에 관한 고찰

In 2004, the Supreme Court decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby Pty. Ltd. The Case was, in the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, “maritime case about a train wreck.”James N. Kirby was an Australian manufacturer of heavy machinery who contracted with ICC, a freight forwarder, to ship ten package of machinery from Australia to Huntsville,Alabama, U.S.A. Huntsville is an inland destination, requiring either rail or truck carriage from Savannah. Two bills of lading were issued, one by the freight forwarder, ICC, to the shipper, Kirby, and one by the carrier, Hamburg Sud, to ICC. Both bills extended “beyond the tackles,” and contemplated a shipment that included a land leg as well as the sea leg of the journey. Also, the bills contained clauses limiting the liability of the freight forwarder and carrier respectively, as well as other parties assisting in the performance of the carriage contract. As Huntsville is an inland destination, Hamburg Sud contracted with Norfolk Southern Railway (hereinafter Norfolk) to carry the cargo by train for the final inland leg of the journey, between Savannah, the discharge port, and Huntsville, the destination. Prior to reaching Huntsville, the train derailed, causing US$1.5 million worth of damage to the machinery. Kirby sued Norfolk, who claimed coverage under the limitations of liability in both the ICC and Hamburg Sud bills of lading. The United States Supreme Court held that the United States Federal maritime law governs disputes arising under a multi-modal ocean bill of lading which includes a “substantial” maritime leg, irrespective of whether the carriage also includes a substantial over-land carriage and irrespective of the leg of the voyage on which the claimed damage occurred. The Court further held that claims arising under multi-modal ocean bills of lading are not “inherently local” such that state law should govern. Applying Federal maritime law, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant rail carrier was covered by Himalaya clauses contained in two multi-modal bills of lading issued in respect of the subject cargo and thus was entitled to the COGSA's US$500 per package limitation of liability in respect of damage to a cargo of machinery which occurred as a result of a train derailment on the final leg of the delivery. In so doing, the Court held that, for the narrow purposes of accepting limitations of liabilities in the bill of lading, at least, the cargo interests were bound by the terms in the bill of lading of the actual carrier through the agency of the contracting carrier. This decision is significant for at least three reasons: (1) it broadens and clarifies the application of the Federal maritime law to all bills of lading involving multi-modal transportation which includes a “substantial” maritime leg; (2) it makes clear that Himalaya Clauses in bills of lading are subject to the same rules of construction as other contract terms and should be enforced if a plain reading of the language indicates that it was intended to apply in a given situation; and (3) it makes clear that an intermediate carrier or NVOCC can bind the shipper to the actual carrier’s limitation of liability contained in its bill of lading.