Jurisprudence on Interpretation of the Hague-Visby Rules: Properly care for goods
A consignment of 40 cases of aluminium can body in coils loaded in Sydney on board the m/vBunga Seroja
was partly damaged during the passage from Sydney to Keelung, Taiwan on account of heavy weather. Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd., to which the property in the goods had passed, claimed damages from the carrier, Malaysian International Shipping Corp. Berhad but the claim was rejected by the trial Judge whose decision was affirmed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The claimant appealed to the High Court of Australia contending that the exception of perils of the sea did not apply because damage to the cargo resulted from sea weather conditions which could reasonably be foreseen and guarded against. The question to which the submission primarily was directed was the meaning and effect of art. IV r. 2(c) of the Hague Rules.
Held, by the High Court of Australia, that:(1) The fact that responsibility under Art. 3 r. 2 is expressly made subject to the exemptions in Art. 4 does not mean that the duty of care imposed by Art. 3 r. 2 is in some way qualified by Art. 4 r. 2.
You may also be interested in:
Whether master presented by Shipper’s with clean BL to sign was provided with warranty that cargo shipped in good order and condition – Consideration of Article III rules 3 and 5 of the Hague Rules.
The UK Club’s correspondents, Taiwan Transport Insurance Services Ltd, (TTIS), have kindly notified that the new pre-arrival notification rules in Taiwan for Changhua Wind Farm Channel will take effect on 26 October 2021.
Under the IMSBC Code, a Group A cargo is one which may liquefy if shipped at a moisture content in excess of its transportable moisture limit.
Inflated Medical Damages in California State Courts: A brief analysis of Howell v. Hamilton Meats and how to prevent “unreasonable” costs
In a costly new trend, California Plaintiffs’ attorneys are referring their personal injury clients to expensive, lien-based medical providers to skirt the California Supreme Court’s decision in Howell v Hamilton Meats which limits plaintiffs to recovering the actual amounts paid for medical treatment not the amounts billed.