i-law

Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter

Adelaide Shipping Lines, Ltd. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. (9th Cir., 1979) 8 March, 1979

Burden of proof of fire defense in cargo damages cases - Ninth Circuit requires proof of seaworthiness before defense can be established under COGSA, despite applicability of 1851 statute

Petition for certiorari, 79-73, filed July 16, 1979, the dual nature of fire defences in the United States is questioned and decided negatively. In the 1936 COGSA (46 U.S.C. 1308) the 1851 Fire Statute (46 U.S.C. 182) is specifically preserved - the 1893 Harter Act also had preserved it (46 U.S.C. 196). The standard interpretation of this had been that although the 1851 Fire Statute has a very narrow field of applicability (“owner of a(ny) vessel . . . by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on board the vessel . . .”), nevertheless the non-delegable duties associated with seaworthiness under COSGA do not apply thereto so that the owner, for example, can prove due care in selection of repairmen whose actions may have contributed or resulted in the loss. (See generally, Earle & Stoddart, Inc. v. Ellerman’s Wilson Line (The Galileo), 287 U.S. 420 (1932) and Consumers Import Co. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Kawasaki Zosenjo (The Venice Maru) 320 U.S. 249 (1943).)

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2025 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.