The Jason

Background

A shipowner and the owners of goods carried on the ship disagreed after the vessel was in danger and property was voluntarily sacrificed to save ship and cargo. The bills of lading contained a clause saying that if the owner had exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, the cargo-owners would still contribute to general average losses—even when damage followed negligent navigation. The dispute raised whether that clause was valid under the Harter Act and prior decisions like The Irrawaddy.

Reasoning

The Court examined the Harter Act’s three sections and the earlier case law. It noted that the Act limits a shipowner’s liability when the owner has exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, and that before the Act carriers could not validly contract away negligence liability. The Court concluded that where the Act itself removes liability for negligent navigation, it is not against public policy for a shipowner to agree to share in general average contributions. The Court also rejected the idea that a master must sacrifice the owner’s property without regard to general average principles. Because the bill of lading expressly obligated the cargo-owners to contribute as if negligence had not occurred, the clause was valid and mutual: the shipowner could claim contribution and the cargo-owners could not recover from the shipowner without contributing themselves.

Real world impact

The decision enforces such bill-of-lading clauses when the shipowner has made the vessel seaworthy. That means shipping companies and shippers can rely on mutual contribution rules for extraordinary sacrifices made to save the voyage, and cargo-owners cannot obtain one-sided recoveries under these facts.