적부(積付)과실에 관한 감하능력과 운송물 취급상의 책임

Where cargo is so badly stowed as to imperil the safety of the vessel, a difficult question arises as to how any resulting loss or damage, to either the vessel or its cargo, should be categorized. Is it due to the bad stowage or to the uncargoworthiness caused by the bad stowage? The answer to this question will prove critical to the question of who should bear responsibility for the loss under FIO contract under which parties (the carriers or the cargo owners) have accepted responsibility for stowage. It is necessary to distinguish unseaworthiness and bad stowage as both are different terms. Bad stowage is obvious source of danger. But English courts have been reluctant to treat every case of bad stowage as rendering the ship unseaworthy. Many substantial causality were resulting from undeclared dangerous cargo damage to vessel or other cargo is often caused by inadequate packing or stowage of dangerous goods. Under Article III R 2 of the rules, the carrier has duty to “properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge for the cargo.”If the damage was due to bad stowage, the carrier was protected against liability by the conditions contained in the bills of lading; but if it was due to unseaworthiness the cargo owners were liable. Where, ship having been injured in consequence of bad stowage the warranty of seaworthiness of the ship has been held to be broken; but in such case it is unseaworthiness caused by bad stowage and not the bad stowage itself which constitutes the breach of warranty. There is no rule that, if the two parcels of cargo are so stowed that one can injure the other during the course of the voyage, the ship is unseaworthy Article 4(2) of Hague Rules clearly reads there are certain points where the carrier cannot be held liable for loss or damage sustained by the ship arising or resulting from any cause without the act, fault or neglect of the shipper, his agents or his servants.