Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Background

  • Chapter
The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 33))

Abstract

The liability for deck cargo has long deviated from general cargo liability, essentially on the grounds that carriage on deck exposes the goods to additional risks. This is still so today, although the traditional risks involved in deck carriage have decreased considerably due to technical developments. This chapter aims to give account of the special characteristics of deck carriage. It is initiated with an attempt to provide a definition for deck cargo, followed by a review of the legal effects of deck stowage on marine insurance policies and letters of credit. Moreover, taking into consideration how deck cargo is exposed to additional risks, there is reason to answer the question of why cargo is stowed on the deck in the first place. The final section focuses on containerisation, a phenomenon that has changed the scenery of world trade and shifted the traditional risk exposure faced by deck cargo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Thomas (2010), p. 202.

  2. 2.

    In two US cases, stowage in a hatch-trunk and in a “ship’s hospital” (a steel structure on deck with heavy wooden doors) were held to constitute below deck stowage: Fred W Sargent, 1940 AMC 670 (United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division 1940); Massce & Co Inc v Bank Line “Lossiebank”, 1938 AMC 1033 (California Supreme Court (United Stated) 1938); Cf. however the English case “Dixon”, where goods in a deck house were regarded as loaded on deck: Dixon v Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd “Dixon”, (1885) 1 TLR 490 (Court of Appeal).

  3. 3.

    See for example: Tetley (2008), p. 1569; Carver and Colinvaux (1982), p. 858; Grönfors and Gorton (1982), p. 98; Astle (1967), p. 43.

  4. 4.

    UNCITRAL (1972), p. 274.

  5. 5.

    UNCITRAL (2002), pp. 24–25.

  6. 6.

    Or rather not avoidable by the exercise of due care, because the carrier’s standard of care is not absolute. The emphasis is meant to underline that damage caused by the types of risks aimed at here arise without the fault of either party. It may be difficult in a particular case to investigate whether cargo was lost due to a special risk involved in deck carriage or due to the carrier’s negligence in for example lashing the cargo (the latter loss will often for natural reasons be caused by a combination of the fact that the vessel is heaving and that the carrier has failed to secure the cargo but will be wholly attributed to the carrier). See Sect. 6.1.1.4 (Nordic law) and Sect. 6.2.3.5 (English law).

  7. 7.

    American Dornier Machinery Corp v MSC Gina, 2002 AMC 560 (United States District Court, Southern District of New York 2001), p. 562; Hodges and Glass (2010), p. 252.

  8. 8.

    A fire caused by the elements however, such as fire resulting from lightning or seawater generating a chemical reaction, will generally be included. Damage from fire caused by a container with dangerous goods, on the other hand, will not, although dangerous cargo will generally have to be stowed on deck: Sturley et al. (2010), p. 129.

  9. 9.

    Gezelius (1964), p. 54.

  10. 10.

    Grönfors and Gorton (1982), p. 98.

  11. 11.

    Gezelius (1964), p. 54.

  12. 12.

    Carver and Colinvaux (1982), pp. 859–860; Gezelius (1964), p. 54.

  13. 13.

    The container is for purposes of seaworthiness (read: cargoworthiness) recognised to form “part of the ship” under Art. III.1 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules – see Sect. 6.1.1.2.

  14. 14.

    Krüger (1973), p. 500.

  15. 15.

    The term “container vessel” includes for the purpose of this work any vessel especially equipped to carry containerised cargo, i.e. not only hatch-less ships carrying nothing but containers. Thus, also modern dry cargo vessels are included.

  16. 16.

    NOU 2012 :10, p. 581.

  17. 17.

    Cooke et al. (2007), p. 963; Treitel et al. (2011), p. 655; Gezelius (1964), p. 54. Cf. however: Scrutton and Eder (2011), p. 420; Jantzen (1938), pp. 255 and 569–570.

  18. 18.

    Gezelius (1964), p. 54.

  19. 19.

    Falkanger et al. (2011), p. 317.

  20. 20.

    See Sect. 6.2.3.4.

  21. 21.

    Williams (2005), p. 100.

  22. 22.

    See Sect. 6.2.3.5.

  23. 23.

    Dunt (2009), pp. 43–46.

  24. 24.

    Goodacre (1996), p. 173; Dunt (2009), p. 45. Cf. Clause 10.2 of the 2009 ICC on geographical deviation.

  25. 25.

    See Sect. 6.3.1.2.

  26. 26.

    See e.g. Art. IV.5 of the Hague and the Hague-Visby Rules.

  27. 27.

    See Sect. 5.2.1.4 (Nordic law) and Sect. 5.2.2.5 (English law).

  28. 28.

    A set of rules for the standardisation of the practice relating to letters of credits issued by ICC. The rules have become a great success and today have almost universal effect. The current (seventh) edition of the rules, the UCP 600, was issued in 2007: Murray et al. (2007), pp. 184–186.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., pp. 42–43.

  30. 30.

    This reflects the legal position that a carrier cannot exclude a bill of lading from the scope of the Hague or the Hague-Visby Rules through a mere option or liberty clause – see Sect. 3.2.1.

  31. 31.

    Art. 1 UCP 600.

  32. 32.

    ICC (2007), p. 125.

  33. 33.

    Gezelius (1964), p. 56.

  34. 34.

    Knauth (1953), p. 236.

  35. 35.

    UNCITRAL (1972), p. 271.

  36. 36.

    Hodges and Glass (2010), p. 248.

  37. 37.

    AIMU Technical Services Committee (2008), p. 9.

  38. 38.

    Astle (1981), p. 114.

  39. 39.

    Branch (2007), p. 346.

  40. 40.

    Thomas (2010), p. 202.

  41. 41.

    Strauch (2005), p. 17.

  42. 42.

    Levinson (2008), pp. 1–3.

  43. 43.

    For a comprehensive list of the features of containerisation – see: Branch (2007), pp. 376–377.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., p. 346.

  45. 45.

    Grönfors and Gorton (1982), pp. 99–100.

  46. 46.

    Branch (2007), p. 352.

  47. 47.

    Selvig (1975), p. 95.

  48. 48.

    UNCITRAL (2002), p. 25.

  49. 49.

    Fossey (2012), p. 52.

  50. 50.

    Konica Business Machines v Sea-Land Consumer, 1998 AMC 2705 (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 1998), p. 2708.

  51. 51.

    Falkanger et al. (2011), p. 300. As for the validity of such clauses in Nordic and English law – see Sect. 5.2.1.3 (Nordic law) and Sect. 5.2.2.4 (English law).

  52. 52.

    This is done in particular in multimodal transport: Vestergaard Pedersen (2008), pp. 577–578. See e.g. Combiconbill 1995 (Clause 11.2) and Combiconwaybill 1995 (Clause 11.2) Cf. with the non-multimodal (port-to-port) transport standard forms Conlinebill 2000 (Clause 3(a)) and Linewaybill (Clause 10), which exclude the carrier’s liability for deck cargo.

  53. 53.

    Vestergaard Pedersen (2008), p. 577; Auren (1995), p. 12.

  54. 54.

    Du Pont de Nemours Int’l SA v Mormacvega, 1974 AMC 67 (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 1974), p. 74.

  55. 55.

    UNCITRAL (2002), pp. 24–25. See also the US case “MSC Gina” where the court stated that the thin walls of a container could not be compared with the hull of the vessel: United States District Court, Southern District of New York 2001, 2002, p. 562.

  56. 56.

    Auren (1995), pp. 72–73.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 12.

  58. 58.

    Grönfors (1982), pp. 301–302.

  59. 59.

    AIMU Technical Services Committee (2008), p. 3.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., p. 14.

  61. 61.

    ‘Lobby against Misdeclared Cargo Gets Strident’ (2013), p. 25.

  62. 62.

    Tetley (2008), p. 1575.

  63. 63.

    AIMU Technical Services Committee (2008), p. 23.

  64. 64.

    Wooder (1991), p. 141.

  65. 65.

    See Sect. 5.3.1.2 (Nordic law) and Sect. 5.3.2.2 (English law).

References

  • AIMU Technical Services Committee, On Deck Stowage of Containers (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Astle WE (1967) Shipowners’ cargo liabilities and immunities. H.F. & G. Witherby Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Astle WE (1981) The Hamburg rules: an appreciation of the cause and effect of the amendments to the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules. Fairplay, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Auren EB (1995) Containertransport: Dokumentasjon, kontroll og ansvar. MarIus – the Periodical, 1–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch A (2007) Elements of shipping, 8th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver TG, Colinvaux R (1982) Carriage by sea. Stevens, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke JHS, Kimball JD, Young T, Martowski D, Taylor A, Lambert L (2007) Voyage charters, 3rd edn. Informa, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunt J (2009) Marine cargo insurance. Informa Law, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkanger T, Bull HJ, Brautaset L (2011) Scandinavian maritime law: the Norwegian perspective, 3rd edn. Univ.-Forl, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Fossey J (2012) Pushing the boat out. CI 45:50–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Gezelius H (1964) Några frågor om ansvaret för däckslast. Ekonomiskt forum, 53–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodacre JK (1996) Marine insurance claims, 3rd edn. Witherby, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönfors K (1982) Svensk rättspraxis: Sjörätt och annan transporträtt 1976–1980. SvJT 67:296–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönfors K, Gorton L (1982) Sjölagens bestämmelser om godsbefordran. Norstedt, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges S, Glass D (2010) Deck cargo: safely stowed at last or still at sea? In: Thomas DR (ed) The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s List, London, pp 237–270

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC (2007) Commentary on UCP 600: article-by-article analysis by the UCP 600 drafting group. ICC, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantzen J (1938) Ny håndbok o godsbefordring til sjøs: Befraktning. Fabritius, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauth AW (1953) The American law of ocean bills of lading, 4th edn. American Maritime Cases, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger K (1973) Transportomlegning: Saerlig om deviasjon i sjøtransport. s.n., Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson M (2008) The box: how the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobby against misdeclared cargo gets strident (2013). CI 46:25

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray C, Holloway D, Timson-Hunt D (2007) Schmitthoff’s export trade: the law and practise of international trade. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • NOU 2012:10: Gjennomføring av Rotterdamreglene i sjøloven. Departementenes servicesenter, Informasjonsforvaltning, Oslo, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrutton TE, Eder B (2011) Scrutton on charterparties and bills of lading, 22nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvig E (1975) Fra kjøpsretten og transportrettens grenseland: Om transportdokumentenes kjøpsrettslige funksjoner. Univ.-Forl, Oslo usw

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauch W (2005) Sicherung der Ware im Container. In: Duken U (ed) Containerhandbuch: Fachinformationen der deutschen Transportversicherer. Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel GJ (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetley W (2008) Marine cargo claims, 4th edn. Thomson Carswell, Cowansville

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DR (2010) Special liability regimes under the international conventions for the carriage of goods by sea: dangerous cargo and deck cargo. NTHR, 197–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Treitel GH, Reynolds FMB, Carver TG (2011) Carver on bills of lading, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL, A/CN.9/63/Add.1 – Report of the Working Group on International Legislation on Shipping on the work of the third session (Geneva, 31 January – 11 February 1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL, A/CN.9/525 – Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its tenth session (Vienna, 16–20 September 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestergaard Pedersen P (2008) Transportret: Introduktion til reglerne om transport af gods. Forlaget Thomson, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R (2005) The developing law relating to deck cargo. JIML 11:100–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooder JB (1991) Deck cargo: old vices and new law. J Mar L & Com 22:131–146

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Max Planck Research School, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Lina Wiedenbach

Authors
  1. Lina Wiedenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wiedenbach, L. (2015). Background. In: The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 33. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation