船舶适航能力

1、窗体顶端34 J. Mar. L. & Com. 497Journal of Maritime Law and CommerceJuly, 2003Case Note*497SEAWORTHINESS: A NEW CALCULUS FACTORS IN ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS: MOBIL SHIPPING & TRANSPORTATION CO. v. WONSILD LIQUID CARRIERS, LTD., 190 F.3D 64, 1999 AMC 2705 (2D CIR. 1999)Susan HodgesFNa1Copyright

2、 © 2003 by Jefferson Law Book Company; Susan HodgesINTRODUCTIONIn Mobil Shipping Transportation Co. v. Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd., FN1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York introduced a new criterion for the assessment of seaworthiness. In 1999, the additional

3、 considerationrisk of environmental damagereceived the approval of the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. FN2 Whether the fashionable notion of environmental seaworthiness will be confirmed by a higher tribunal, or accepted by other jurisdictions, remains to be seen. The case has

4、left something for twenty-first century judges and lawyers to ponder and evaluate. One can safely predict that, in our current climate of eco-friendliness, any cause that safeguards the environment will receive a hearing. However, its adoption depends as much upon the strength of its foundation as u

5、pon the personal orientation of the judge trying the case. The purpose of this case note is to examine whether it has any real basis in law and to discuss various related aspects of seaworthiness.在美孚船务运输有限公司 诉 Wonsild液体运输有限公司一案中，美国纽约南区地方法院提出了一个新的评估适航性的标准。1999年，将环境损害的风险作为一种额外考量标准的观点得到了美国第二巡回上诉法院的认可。当

6、前流行的环境适航性的概念能否被上一级法院或其他法域所接受还有待观察。这个案子给二十一世纪的法官和律师们留下了许多值得思考和评价的地方。我们可以放心地预测，在我们当前这个主张环境友好的环境下，任何保护环境的因素都会得到听证。然而，它通过与否则会取决于其自身是否有牢靠的基础以及法官审理此案时的个人倾向。本案例意在考察其是否有任何真正的法律依据并讨论与适航性相关的各个方面。FACTSMobil Shipping and Transportation Company (“Mosat”) chartered the Alsterstern, a double-hulled freighter, from

7、 Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd. (“Wonsild”) for the carriage of lube oil from Europe to Hong Kong via Singapore. The charter party contained an express term relating to seaworthiness, that the Alsterstern “shall be in good working order and condition and in every way seaworthy and fit for the carriage

8、 of the cargo” at the commencement of each stage of the voyage. FN3 The ship travelled safely from *498 Europe to Singapore, but when she arrived at Singapore, she crashed into the discharge berth and sustained two serious lesions, a thirty-foot long gash in her outer hull nine feet above the water

9、line and a thirty-three foot long indentation twenty feet above the water line. The accident resulted from an unexpected loss of power. Soon after the accident, a surveyor engaged by Wonsild inspected the vessel on three occasions and ultimately determined that the ship was fit to continue her voyag

10、e to Hong Kong, but only if (1) she sailed at the safest possible speed; (2) she sailed in favourable weather; and (3) the hull damage was monitored during the voyage. FN4美孚航运运输公司("Mosat")特许一艘名为“Alsterstern”号的双壳货船，从Wonsild液体载体有限公司将润滑油从欧洲经新加坡运往香港。租船合同载有一条有关适航性的明示条款，即Alsterstern"在航行的每一阶

11、段的开始都应具备良好的工作秩序和条件，在各个方面适于航行且适合货物运输。这艘船一路安全地从欧洲驶向新加坡，但当它抵达新加坡时，它撞上了卸载泊位并造成了两处严重的损坏，一处三十英尺长的损坏位于水线上方九英尺，另一处长三十三英尺位于水线上方二十英尺。事故源于一次意想不到的动力损失。 事故后不久，Wonsild聘请的测量师三次检查船只，并最终确定，这艘船适于继续去香港的航行，但必须满足以下条件：(1)她以安全速度航行；(2)她在有利的天气航行；(3)在航行期间监测船体破损的情况。Good weather was forecast for the Alsterstern's anticipat

12、ed four-day journey from Singapore to Hong Kong. However, she would have to undertake the 1400-mile voyage on the open sea with a “jury-rigged” electrical system that relied on the ship's emergency generator. The master of the Alsterstern accordingly informed Mosat that the vessel was (in its un

13、-repaired state) ready to proceed to Hong Kong. Insisting that the vessel was seaworthy, Wonsild refused to repair her, whereupon Mosat directed Wonsild to have the remaining oil discharged in Singapore. Mosat paid the full freight as if the cargo had been transported to Hong Kong, and incurred addi

14、tional expenses for off-loading the oil at Singapore, and storing it and obtained a substitute vessel for its transport to Hong Kong. Mosat then commenced an action for breach of contract alleging that Wonsild had breached the charter party by failing to maintain the Alderstern in a seaworthy condit

15、ion. FN5天气预报预测在Alsterstern计划四天的从新加坡到香港的航行中将会有良好的天气。然而，她将不得不使用一个依靠船舶应急发电机进行工作的“应急”电子系统来进行她长达1400英里的航行。Alsterstern的主人因此通知摩萨特，该船(处于一种未修复状态下)准备前往香港。Wonsild坚持认为船舶处于适航状态而拒绝维修船舶，于是摩萨特指示Wonsild在新加坡将剩余的油全部卸载。摩萨特支付货物运输至香港的全部运费，并支付了在新加坡卸载剩余机油并储存，以及用另一艘船舶将其运输至香港的额外费用。此后Mosat对Wonsild 提起违约之诉，认为其没有使Alderstern船舶处于适

16、航状态的从而违反了租船合同。THE COURTS' OPINIONSThe central legal issue was whether the Alsterstern was, in her damaged condition, seaworthy for the voyage to Hong Kong. Was Wonsild in breach of the express term of the charter party in relation to continuing seaworthiness? FN6The liability of Wonsild was thus

17、 essentially dependent upon the finding of the court regarding the seaworthiness of the ship. At the trial court, *499Judge Martin held that Wonsild breached the charter party, because the Alsterstern was unseaworthy. On appeal, Wonsild argued that Judge Martin had applied an incorrect legal yardsti

18、ck to determine the seaworthiness of its ship. Judge Martin had written:核心的法律问题在于Alsterstern在受损情况下航行至香港能否被认为“适航”。Wonsild到底有没有违反租船合同中有关保持船舶适航性的明示条款？Wonsild的责任因此基本上取决于法院关于船舶的适航性的裁定。在庭审中，法官马丁认为Wonsild违反租船合同，因为Alsterster不适航。在上诉中，Wonsild认为法官马丁适用了一个错误的标准去认定船舶不适航。法官马丁这样写道：In determining whether a vessel is

19、 seaworthy, the Court must consider the nature of the cargo. If the cargo had been milk, the gash in the vessel's hull would not have made it unseaworthy. But in the light of the environmental damage that can result from a major oil spill, it is appropriate to impose on vessel owners and operato

20、rs the highest standards in determining when a vessel is seaworthy for the purpose of transporting oil. The Court agrees with Mosat's experienced staff that the risk posed by sending out to sea a vessel loaded with oil with a thirty foot gash in its hull was too great. FN7Judge Martin, relying p

21、rimarily on The Southwark, FN8 concluded that “the damage to the Alsterstern's hull did constitute a breach of the charter party's warranty that the hull be in good condition and fit for the carriage of the cargo.FN9 在认定船舶是否适航时，法院必须考虑货物的性质。如果货物是牛奶，那么船身的损坏并不会使船舶不适航。但是考虑到油品泄漏对于环境的破坏，在判定运输石油的船舶

22、的适航性时，对船舶的所有者和运输者科以最高标准应当是一种合理的做法。法院同意摩萨特公司一位有经验的工作人员的说法，即让一艘满载石油却存在一处三十英尺长破损的船舶出海航行所构成的风险过大。法官马丁主要根据“南沃克”案得出如下结论："Alsterstern的船体损坏构成了对于租船合同中关于使船体处于良好状态且适于运输的保证条款的违反。On appeal, Judge McLaughlin, who supported Judge Martin's decision, FN10 offered a fuller account of the law confirming that

23、the heightened risk of environmental damage was indeed a relevant factor when assessing seaworthiness. Judge McLaughlin wrote:在上诉中，法官麦克劳克林支持法官马丁的意见，并对相关法律做了更充分的说明并确认在评估适航性时，对于环境损害的风险的确是一个相关的考量因素。麦克劳克林法官这样写道：In this environmentally-sensitive era, consideration of the potential environmental impact of

24、 a disaster comports with modern notions of what goes into the “seaworthiness” calculus. The Supreme Court FN11 has defined seaworthiness as whether a vessel is “reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport.” By adopting a “reasonably fit to carry the cargo” standard, the

25、Court has indicated that the district court should consider the nature of the vessel's cargo when determining whether the vessel can reasonably perform its intended duties. FN12 Similarly, we have noted that “seaworthiness” requires the vessel to be able to transport the liquid cargo “safely.” C

26、ommon sense counsels that “safe” transport encompasses not only the vessel's ability to protect the cargo's integrity, but also its ability to transport the cargo without threatening the environment. FN13在这个对于环境问题相当敏感的时代，对于灾难的潜在环境影响的考量必须与“适航性”的现代观点兼容。最高法院这样定义适航性：即一艘船在合理程度上适于运载它所要运输的货物。最高法院采用

27、"合理地适合于运载货物"的标准，意在使地方法院将货物的性质作为因素之一以判定船舶能否合理恰当地完成预期任务时。于此类似的是，我们注意到，"适航性"要求该船能够“安全地”运输液体货物。对于这一问题，普遍的理解是“安全”运输不仅意味着船舶应当能够保护货物的完整性，还要求在船舶不危害环境的前提下运输货物。*500ANALYSISThe courts' decision that the ship was unseaworthy is undoubtedly correct. Although both courts came to the right

28、conclusion, they advanced an inappropriate and unnecessary criterion in their determination of seaworthiness. The question is whether Judges Martin and McLaughlin were wrong to consider the hazardous nature of the cargo when evaluating the seaworthiness of the Alsterstern. Judge Martin referred to a

29、 solitary case, The Southwark, FN14 as the basis of his decision; Judge McLaughlin relied essentially on the ancient but well-known case, The Silvia, FN15 and the more recent Amerada Hess Corp. v. S/T Mobil Apex, FN16 as precedents for the risk of environmental damage rule. Thus, it is necessary to

30、scrutinise not only the legal basis of the decisions, but also the facts of each of these cases. This exercise is necessary to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the proposition that the risk of environmental damage is relevant to seaworthiness in a case such as that of the Alderstern.法院认

31、为这艘船是不适航的决定无疑是正确的。虽然两个法院都得出了正确的结论，但他们在判定适航性时增加了一个不适当且不必要的评价标准。问题在于，法官马丁和麦克劳克林在评价Alsterstern的适航性时，将货物的有毒性质纳入考量范围的这一做法是否错误。法官马丁引用了“南沃克”案作为其判决的基础；而法官麦克劳克林则基本上依赖于古老而著名的“西尔维娅”案和最近的“阿拉美达赫斯公司诉 S/T美孚端”案作为适用环境损害风险规则的先例。因此，我们不仅需要审查这些判决的法律依据，还应当逐一审查所涉判例的具体事实。这一工作是十分必要的，因为这有助于我们确认在处理类似Alderstern案时，将环境损害的风险与适航性联

32、系起来的观点是否具有正当性基础。 The Silvia, decided in 1898, was concerned with a ship that had sailed with certain glass ports closed and secured, but their iron covers left open. This was done intentionally, in order to allow light into that compartment should it be necessary to get anything from it. During the

33、voyage, the ship encountered rough weather, and the glass cover of one of the ports was broken, causing seawater to enter the ship and damage the cargo of sugar. The issue was whether the Silvia was seaworthy when she sailed without first locking the iron covers.“西尔维娅”案，于1898年判决，它所涉及的是一艘运载着玻璃瓶的船舶。这些

34、玻璃瓶是密闭且完好的，但他们的铁盖子是开着的。这是有意为之的，目的在于使光线可以照进船舱。在航行中，船遇到了极其恶劣的天气，其中一件玻璃瓶被打碎，导致海水进入船舶并损坏了所运输的白糖。问题在于“西尔维娅”号在航行时不先锁上铁盖子的情况下，是否是适航的。The Supreme Court stated, “The test of seaworthiness is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport.” FN17 The Court relied

35、on two factors to arrive at its conclusion that the ship was seaworthy, the second of which may not at first sight be obvious or easily discernible. The first related to the condition of the port glass covers and the iron shutters; the Court found “nothing . to justify an inference that there was an

36、y defect in either.” FN18 Thus, the Silvia satisfied the test of being structurally sound and well equipped for the purpose of protecting ship and cargo against the inroads of the seas.最高法院认为，"检验适航性与否的标准是船舶是否适于运输其所承载的货物。"法院依靠两个因素来判定一艘船舶是否适航，其中第二个因素可能乍看之下并不明显。第一个因素涉及到玻璃瓶的盖子和铁制窗户的情况，法院发现&quo

37、t;没有任何证据可以证明其存在缺陷。 "因此，西尔维亚用于抵御海上风险以保护船舶和货物的紧密结构和精良装备符合适航性的要求。The second inquiry conducted by the Court regarded the accessibility of the portholes. Since the vessel's shutters were easily accessible and could be closed at a moment's notice on the approach of a storm, she was held to be

38、 *501 seaworthy. Though the portholes were not immediately accessible, they were readily accessible. Nothing in the condition of the ship, therefore, rendered her unseaworthy in this regard. FN19 The presence of an obstruction (by cargo or furniture) would have been viewed as affecting the physical

39、condition of a ship. On the other hand, a failure to close the portholes during a voyage, under the circumstances, pertained to crew conduct rather than to seaworthiness, which generally relates to the condition of the ship, her equipment and crew. However, this is not to say that a ship is not unse

40、aworthy if the crew is untrained to close the iron shutters when a necessity arises, for such ignorance or disabling want of knowledge would put a different complexion to things: incompetence and inefficiency of master and crew are classic examples of unseaworthiness. FN20法院进行的第二项调查涉及舷窗的可用性。由于船只的窗户很

41、容易打开，并且能够在风暴靠近时迅速关闭，因为“西尔维娅”号被认为是适航的。虽然舷窗没有被马上打开，但是打开他们是相当容易的。因此，从船舶自身条件这方面说，没有任何问题可以导致她的不适航。障碍物的存在(如货物或设备)会被视为影响船舶的运行状态的因素。另一方面，在航行期间如果无法关闭舷窗，这通常被认为是船员的行为而不涉及适航性，因为这更多的是与船舶的状态，设备和船员有关。然而，这并不是说如果船员未经训练从而导致必要时无法关闭铁窗户时，仍然可以被认为是适航的。这种对于相关知识技能的不了解和不掌握会导致一个完全不同的局面：即船长和船员相关知识能力的不胜任和低效率是导致不适航的经典例子。The Supr

42、eme Court clarified The Silvia in International Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey Manufacturing Co. FN21 In that case, a failure to shut the portholes in a compartment was held to have rendered a vessel unseaworthy. Chief Justice Fuller distinguished the facts at hand from those in The Silvia sinc

43、e: “this is not a case where it appears that the port would ordinarily have been left open, to be closed as the exigency might require, and where failure to close it during the voyage might be an error or fault in management.” FN22 The Chief Justice disclaimed any implication “that failure to close

44、portholes necessarily creates unseaworthiness. That depends on circumstances.” FN23最高法院澄清了“西尔维娅”案。在“西尔维娅”案中，未能关闭船舱的舷窗被认为已经导致了船舶的不适航。首席法官富勒区分了本案和“西尔维娅”案的相关事实："这并非相同的情况，因为这些瓶子通常情况下是打开的，只有在特殊情况下才可能要求盖上，而当航行过程中无法盖上瓶子时就可能导致管理上的错误。"首席法官否认无法打开舷窗必然导致不适航。这需要取决于具体情况。、Neither The Silvia nor Internati

45、onal Navigation Co. mentions the nature of the cargo or risk of environmental damage as a necessary component in the test for seaworthiness. According to the reasoning of the Court, if a ship's portholes are sound in construction and are easily accessible, she is seaworthy, whether the cargo be

46、sugar or arsenic. It is difficult to see how environmental damage, however devastating, can have a bearing on the sea-worthiness of a ship. A vessel's defenses against the incursions of the sea must surely be the same regardless of the nature of the cargo: she is or is not capable of encounterin

47、g the ordinary perils of the seas. There cannot be degrees of seaworthiness, where the same ship, at a given time and place, *502 may be classified as seaworthy (in its strict sense) for the carriage of one cargo and not for another. At any particular moment, a ship is either seaworthy or unseaworth

48、y to endure the ordinary dangers and vicissitudes of a voyage. Sailing with two deep open wounds in her side coupled with a serious loss of power must surely be unacceptable, even if milk were carried on board the Alsterstern. To put the matter in another way, no charterer would have accepted delive

49、ry of the vessel tendered in that condition at the commencement of the charter. Further, no prudent ship owner would send her to sea in that condition. FN24 She was unseaworthy by all accounts. 无论是西尔维亚还是国际航运有限公司所提到的货物的性质或环境损害的风险都不能作为检验适航性标准的必要成分。根据法院的推理，如果一艘船的舷窗构造合理且易于打开，那么她就是适航的，而不论货物是糖还是砷。很难想象环境损害

50、以及它的破坏性可以关系到船舶的适航性。无论货物的性质如何，船舶对于海上风险的抵御能力必须是一致的：即能否承受通常的海上风险。对于适航性不应当有程度上的划分，也就是说对于同一条船舶，在规定的时间和地点，不能因为她运输某种货物而非另一种货物而判定她适航。在任何特定的时刻，一艘船舶对于抵御航行过程中的通常风险和灾难，它要么是适航的要么就是不适航的。Alsterstern在船舶一侧有着两处很深伤口和严重动力损失的情况下仍然航行的做法是绝对不可接受的，即使其运输的牛奶存放于甲板上。换句话说，没有承租人会在船舱开始时接受一艘处于如此情况下的船舶的交付。进一步说，没有任何一个船东会在这种情况让他的船入海航行

51、。她无论如何都是不适航的。In The Silvia, Justice Gray delivered his famous and “commonly accepted” FN25 definition of seaworthiness: “the test of seaworthiness' is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport.” FN26 This broad statement uttered in the context

52、of cargoworthiness (read with Amerada Hess) had obviously led (or misled) Judge McLaughlin in Mobil Shipping to include the risk of environmental damage in his assessment of the Alsterstern's seaworthiness. It is doubtful that such a thought ever entered Justice Gray's mind.在“西尔维娅”案中，格雷法官提出了

53、他著名的且被广泛接受的关于适航性的定义：检验适航性的标准在于这艘船在合理情况下是否适于运载其将要运输的货物。关于适载能力的这一论述很明显导致了麦克劳克林法官在“美孚船运公司”案中将环境损害的风险纳入到了其对于Alsterstern的适航性的评估当中。而格雷法官是否持有这一观点是存在疑问的。In The Southwark, Justice Day commented on his understanding of Justice Gray's test for seaworthiness in The Silvia:在“南沃克”案中，戴法官阐述了他对于“西尔维娅”案中格雷法官所提出的检

54、验适航性的标准的理解：As seaworthiness depends not only upon the vessel being staunch and fit to meet the perils of the sea, but upon its character in reference to the particular cargo to be transported, it follows that a vessel must be able to transport the cargo which it is held out as fit to carry, or it is

55、 not seaworthy in that respect. But for the special appliances furnished by the vessel, perishable cargoes, such as dressed beef could not be shipped on long voyages in hot weather. FN27由于适航性不仅取决于船舶用以抵抗海上风险的坚固和适应程度，还取决于所运输货物的特定性质特点，因此，船舶必须能够适于运输其所承受的货物，否则就此方面而言，她就是不适航的。但如果船舶并不具备特殊的设备，那么易腐败的货物如熟牛肉是不能

56、在炎热的天气进行长时间的海运的。This summary clearly sets out the two aspects of seaworthiness. The first relates to what may be termed as seaworthiness properly so called, namely fitness to encounter the ordinary perils of the sea, whilst the second relates to fitness to carry a particular cargo, commonly referred

57、 to as “cargoworthiness.” The first posed no problems of relevance in the case of the Alderstern, but the second has engendered misconceptions, which are captured by the Second Circuit in Mobil Shipping: “common sense counsels that safe transport encompasses not only the vessel's ability to prot

58、ect the cargo's integrity, but also its ability to transport the cargo without threatening the environment.” FN28这一总结明确地提出了适航性的两个方面。第一方面涉及到被称之为“适航”这一概念的涵义,即适于抵御正常的海上风险,而第二方面则是指适于运输特定的货物,这通常被称为“适载能力”。“第一与本案中的Alderstern无关, 但第二方面容易产生误解, 就这一点第二巡回法院在美孚运输公司案中主要论述:“对于“安全”运输的普遍理解是它不仅意味着船舶应当能够保护货物的完整性，还要

59、求在船舶不危害环境的前提下运输货物。”*503Judge Martin, who relied solely on The Southwark for his cargo of milk example, argued that “in determining whether a vessel is seaworthy, the Court must consider the nature of the cargo.” FN29 Except for dropping the name of the case, he offered no explanation of its relevance. Confined to cargoworthiness, this statement is correct. The cargo in The Southwark was dressed beef, which had to be kept chilled during the voyage; thus, the dispute was whether the refrigerating apparatus on the board was competent for this purpose.