In what is necessarily an intimate, but oftentimes uneasy relationship existing between vessel owners and time charterers, one of the most frequently recurring causes of dispute concerns the issue of who must bear responsibility for hull damage suffered as a result of certain physical conditions which might characterize a port, or even a particular berth, to which a vessel is traded pursuant to charterer’s orders. Arbitrations, for alleged breach of the safe port/berth clause contained in most charter-parties, comprise a significant proportion of the proceedings attended in New York by members of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, and both P. & I. clubs and charterer’s liability underwriters are quite rightly concerned with new trends and developments affecting their exposure on behalf of their respective assureds.

In this brief article, the authors propose to review recent developments and cases in one particular area of safe port/berth disputes. In a number of recent decisions, panels of arbitrators and courts have begun to depart from past practice of holding charterers to be virtual insurers of a vessel’s safety and have exhibited a welcome willingness to look somewhat more closely at the actions or omissions of the vessel’s master as an intervening cause which sometimes can result in owners bearing financial responsibility for a casualty. Thus, it is the authors’ position that a somewhat new element of fairness has lately entered into the affairs of shipowners and charterers, and masters’ acts and omissions will receive greater attention from counsel for the respective parties.

The revised 1981 New York Produce Exchange form, perhaps the most commonly used charter-party, contains a safe port/berth clause as follows: