Seamen who work on any vessel on the open waters know that there are certain risks they must accept as part of their job. A ship, boat, or other waterborne vehicle is in an environment that can often be dangerous even under the best of conditions. Because of this ever-present risk, seamen need to live and work on vessels that are well-built, in good shape, and safe. This concept, in terms of maritime law, is called “seaworthiness.”
When a vessel is not in seaworthy condition, a myriad of accidents and injuries are bound to happen, which could have been easily prevented with proper maintenance and safety. When accidents occur on unseaworthy vessels, the employer is typically held liable for damages.
Under admiralty law, a vessel’s owner has a responsibility to make sure that the vessel and all its equipment is in a reasonable state of fitness in order to carry out its assigned tasks. The hull, superstructure, decks, engines, hatches, fuel tanks, navigational and communications equipment, and all tools and fittings must be in good shape so that the crew can safely live and work on a vessel.
However, if a vessel or any of its operational components is not in a reasonable state of fitness and its ability to perform its job is diminished, the vessel is considered “unseaworthy.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that an unseaworthy vessel can’t sail on water, but that it can’t perform its designated task. For instance, a fishing trawler with a strong hull, well-maintained engines, and flawless navigation equipment can still be considered unseaworthy if other parts necessary for its duties as a fishing trawler are not in optimal shape.
What is unseaworthiness?
Unseaworthiness is a special legal concept under maritime law. The term may sound dire, but a vessel does not need to be taking on water in order to be considered unseaworthy. Unseaworthiness simply means that a vessel, its equipment, or its crew is not fit for its intended purpose.
The duty of seaworthiness is owed by vessel owners and operators to mariners who qualify as seamen. The duty is non-delegable. If a seaman is injured due to unseaworthy condition, he or she may be entitled to compensation under maritime law. However, only a seaman—a member of a commercial vessel’s crew—can make a claim for unseaworthiness.
Unseaworthy – At the commencement of the voyage
The legal definition of a seaworthy ship is, “one which is in a fit state as to repairs, equipment, crew, and in all other respects, to encounter the ordinary perils of the sea”. It is the perils of the sea, and not the perils on the sea, which have to be considered. If the defect existed, would a prudent owner have required that it should be made good before sending his ship to sea, had he known of it?
Another aspect of the notion of seaworthiness, which has to be considered, is its flexible characteristic. Various factors have to be taken into account when measuring the seaworthiness of a ship. That its import varies with the place, voyage and the class of ship and even the nature of the cargo is clear. Seaworthiness is a relative term and, thus, cannot be determined or measured in the abstract.
It is also necessary to note that the law does not require a shipowner to provide an immaculate or a perfect ship: the standard of seaworthiness is only one of reasonable fitness. The law does not expect a ship to “weather every conceivable storm or withstand every imaginable peril of the sea, but only a vessel reasonably suitable for the particular service”.
Case Study No. 1: Hunt v Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1919] FJSC 1; [1919] 2 FLR 72 (1 January 1919); aff’d on appeal to Privy Council (17 June, 1921) LRAC 1921, vol. 2, 351.
Seaworthiness - Cargo damaged as a result of malfunctioning insulating Apparatus - Seaworthiness of vessel implied warranty in bill of lading.
The plaintiff shipped a load of fruit from Fiji to Australia. On arrival, the bananas, which had been carried in the insulating chamber of the vessel, were damaged and the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. The plaintiff alleged that the insulating machinery was not operating properly. The bill of lading implied a warranty of seaworthiness and the plaintiffs claimed for damages for negligence and breach of duty.
Decision: Damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Held: By section 7(1) of Ordinance No. 1 of 1926, every bill of lading has an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. To recover, the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the fruit was shipped in good condition and properly packed. The defendant must satisfy the court that the insulating apparatus was in good working order. The court found that the insulating apparatus was not in working order and this went to the seaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading stipulates that the plaintiff must give notice of his claim within 7 days of arrival at the port of discharge. This clause did not apply because the damage was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The bill of lading contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness so that was implied by s.7 (1). In that case the express terms of the bill of lading did not apply to the implied contract.
Case Study No. 2: National Trading Corporation Ltd v Huggett [1999] FJHC 6; Hba0011j.98s (19 February 1999).
Seaworthiness – Charterparties implied warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage- Boat owner must indemnify charterer for repairs.
The first Defendant, the charterer, was held to be liable to the Plaintiff for the repairs to the boat engine. The first Defendant was to be indemnified by the 2nd Defendant, the owner of the vessel. The 2nd Defendant appealed the findings. The vessel’s engine had broken down and had to be towed in while on the charter.
Decision: The ordinary rule is that there is an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage. There was nothing in the Charter to exclude or limit this rule. The fault in the engine which caused the breakdown existed when the vessel started and therefore the vessel was not seaworthy for the voyage.
Held: Appeal dismissed
[Article compiled and contributed by Adv. (Capt.) Ashwani Jhingan, Director of Malaxar ShpgLogistix Law & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. He is an Advocate at Mumbai High Court and Member of Supreme Court Bar Association. Adv. (Capt.) Jhingan can be contacted at legal@malaxar.com. You can visit www.malaxar.com. Views expressed are his own.]