Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:30:57.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Aspects of the Titanic Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Arthur K. Kuhn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The appalling loss of life and property resulting from the sinking of the Titanic served to direct public attention both here and abroad not only to the laws which should provide the safeguards of navigation, but also to the incidence of liability for accidents upon the high seas. The former subject has been dealt with in an interesting paper published in this Journal. We here propose to discuss the application to foreign ships, of the United States rule of the limitation of the shipowner’s liability, the foreign law upon the subject and the significance of the international movement for reform through identic legislation in many countries.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1915 , pp. 336 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1915

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wheeler, International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, Amer. Jour, of International Law, Vol. 8, p. 758.

2 Revised Statutes, ss. 4283–4285; U. S. Compiled Statutes (1901), pp. 2943, 2944.

3 Admiralty Rules, Nos. 54, 56; 29 Sup. Ct. XLV, XLVI.

4 The Titanic (1913), 209 Fed. Rep. 501, per Holt, J.

5 Ibid., 513.

6 Ocean Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., v. Mellor (1914), 233 U. S. 718.

7 New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants Bank (1848), 6 How. 344. This case was specifically referred to in the debates in Congress preceding the passage of the Act; see argument of Senator Bradbury (1851), 23 Cong. Globe, 718. See also Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (1858), 21 How. 7, 23; and Shipman, J., in Levinson v. Ocean Steam Navigation Co. (1876), 15 Fed. Cas., No. 8292.

8 3 U. S. Compiled Statutes (1901), pp. 2943, 2945.

9 Ibid., p. 2942.

10 Norwich Co. v. Wright (1871), 13 Wall. 104.

11 Thomassen v. Whitwell (1878), 23 Fed. Cas. 1006. This was an action by the master of a Norwegian bark against the owner of a British steamship, arising out of a collision upon the high seas. The general force of the maritime law was similarly recognized in Churchill v. The British America (1870), 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2715 and in The John Bramall (1879), 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7334.

12 (1881), 105 U. S. 24.

13 Ibid., at p. 29.

14 Story, Conflict of Laws, 8th ed., pp. 589–590.

15 The Scotland (1881), 105 U. S. at pp. 29–30.

16 La Bourgoyne (1907), 210 U. S. 95.

17 The Thingvalla (1890), 42 Fed. Rep. 331; (1891), 48 Fed. Rep. 764.

18 The Norge (1907), 156 Fed. Rep. 845.

19 The State of Virginia (1894), 60 Fed. Rep. 1018.

20 Levinson v. Ocean Steam Navigation Co. (1876), 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8292.

21 The Titanic (1914), 233 U. S. at p. 732.

22 Cf. The Hamilton (1907), 207 U. S. 398; The Eagle Point (1906), 142 Fed. Rep. 453.

23 At p. 116.

24 Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Babcock (1894), 154 U. S. 190, citing among other cases: Dennick v. R. R. (1880), 103 U. 8. 11; Huntington v. Atrill (1892), 146 U. S. 657, 670; The Scotland (1881), 105 U. S. 24, 29. It is significant that the court in the Northern Pacific case cites so much of the opinion in the Scotland case as is now expressly disapproved by Mr. Justice Holmes in the Titanic. The Federal rule is also that of the preponderance of State authority; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. v. Brown, 67 Ark. 295; Hyde v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. R. (1883), 61 la. 441; Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Graham (1896), 98 Ky. 689. The dictum contra in Wooden v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R. (1891), 126 N. Y. 10, though never expressly repudiated, is deemed seriously impaired by the later decision of the Court of Appeals in Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. R. (1897), 153 N. Y. 688, affirming 12 App. Div. 28; see Wharton, Conflict of Laws, 3rd ed., p. 1110, note. The rule in Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Babcock has been approved by the Supreme Court in Slater v. Mexican National R. R. Co. (1904), 194 U. S. 120 and in Mexican Central Ry. Co., Ltd., v. Eckman (1906), 205 U. S. 538.

25 The Hamilton (1907), 207 U. S. 398 (per Holmes, J.); applied in The Bourgoyne (1907), 210 U. S. at p. 138 so as to give a right of action recognized by French law. See also The Harrisburgh (1886), 119 U. S. 199.

26 The Titanic (1914), 233 U. 8. at p. 732.

27 Sohm’s Institutes of Roman Law, pp. 427, 440.

27a Goldschmidt, Universalgeschichte des Handelsrechts, p. 340; Lehmann, Das Recht der Aktiengesellschaft, p. 28; Laband, “Das Seerecht von Amalfi” in Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht, VII, p. 314.

28 Consulat de la Mer, c. 141, 182, Pardessus, Us et Coutumes, II, pp. 155, 206.

29 Cf. Appendix to Peters Admiralty Decisions, I, translation of Laws of Oleron, Wisbuy and the Hanseatic League.

30 Valroger, Revue internationale de droit maritime (1904), p. 630.

31 De belli et pacis, Bk. II, c. 11, s. 13.

32 Bk. II, tit. IV, art. 2.

33 French Commercial Code, Art. 216, as modified by the Laws of June 14, 1841 and April 12, 1885.

34 Art. 661.

35 Art. 838.

36 Court of Appeal, Naples, Feb. 2, 1897, 13, Revue int. de droit maritime, 435; Court of Appeal, Naples, Feb. 27, 1899, 15 Ibid., 249; Court of Appeal, Rome, March 16, 1899, 15 Ibid., 533.

37 Raikes, The Maritime Codes of Italy, p. 6, n., although this seems to be a rather broad conclusion from the decisions of the Italian courts.

38 Portuguese Commercial Code, Art. 492.

39 Art. 485.

40 Art. 768.

41 Sec. 503.

42 The Victoria (1888), 13 P. D. 125.

43 Abbott, Law of Merchant Ships, p. 612; Schaps, Das deutsche Seerecht, Arts. 485, 606.

44 Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, s. 320 (1); applied to the Titanic and exemption held void in Ryan v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. (1914), 29 T. L. R. 629 (Court of Appeal).

45 Court of Cassation, Oct. 28, 1903; Gaz. Pal. 1904, 1, 58. Court of Appeal, Lyons, Aug. 6, 1907; Gaz. Pal. II, 544.

46 Act of February 13, 1893.

47 Ibid., sec. 3. See The Chattahoochee (1899), 173 U. S. 540; The Silvia (1898), 171 U. S. 642.

48 53 Geo. III, C. 159, s. 5; Brown v. Wilkinson (1846), 15 M. & W. 391; African Steam Shipping Co. v. Swanzy (1856), 25 L. J. Ch. 870.

49 Cong. Globe (1851), pp. 332, 715.

50 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, e. 504.

51 Cope v. Doherty (1858), 5K. & J. 367, affd. (1858), 2 De G. & J. 614. At p. 626 (per Turner, L. J.): “This is a question of liability and not of procedure.” Accord, The Wild Ranger (1862), 1 Lush. 553.

52 Court of Appeal, Aix, Jan. 23, 1899, Journal de droit internationale maritime, (1901), p. 104.

53 Ibid.

54 Address of the late John Gray Hill before the English Law Society, Feb. 22, 1904.

55 Lewisohn v. National Steamship Co. (1893), 56 Fed. Rep. 612; The Guildhall (1893), 58 Fed. Rep. 796.

56 The Kensington (1901), 182 U. S. 263; Bottany Worsted Mills v. Knott (1900), 76 Fed. Rep. 582; The Silvia (1898), 68 Fed. Rep. 885, 171 U. S. 462.

57 Outline of a Proposed Convention regarding the Limitation of the Responsibility of Shipowners, as submitted to the Examination of the Governments concerned, Arts. II and VI; see also American Journal of International Law, Vol. IV, p. 416.

58 Report of Conference internationale de droit maritime (1910), p. 198, note.

59 See Report of Proceedings of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, Meeting of March 7th, 1913.

60 23 Cong. Globe (1851), pp. 716–716. The first British statute fixing a monetary forfeiture was enacted three years later.