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).)