the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

PART I - THE HISTORY OF THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES 19I. From the Origin to the Hague Rules, 1921[9]31. Conclusion and Recommendations. As the result of the considerations outlinedabove under the three heads we have come unanimously to the following conclusion:That there should be uniform legislation throughout the Empire on the lines of theexisting Acts dealing with shipowners’ liability, but based more precisely on theCanadian Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, subject to certain further provisionswith regard to:(i) exceptional cases in which good should be allowed to be carried by shipownersat owner’s risk;(ii) the precise definition of the physical limits to the shipowner’s liability;(iii) the fixing of maximum values for packages up to which shipowners should beliable to pay.32. We make the Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act, and not the Harter Actwhich it closely resembles, the basis of our recommendation because it embodies thelatest experience. It was passed in 1910 whereas the Australian Sea Carriage of GoodsAct was passed in 1904 and the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen Act, certain sectionsof which deal with shipowners’ liability, was passed in 1903. The Harter Act waspassed in 1893.The considerations of the Imperial Shipping Committee on each of the three questionsare reproduced hereafter.33. Provision for Exceptional Risks. We attach great importance to the provisions(i), (ii) and (iii) of our recommendations above. In the first place we would make provisionfor exceptions in the case of special kinds of goods or methods of carriage. Allthe Dominion Acts except live animals from their operation and the Canadian Act exceptslumber and other “wood goods”.34. It is clearly requisite to provide for the exceptional treatment of new kinds ofgoods and methods of carriage so that traders and others wishing to initiate new developmentsmay not be met by the impasse that the shipowner is unwilling to take theunknown risks and cannot get rid of his liability in respect of them. It is thought thatvoyages to certain ports or places might also be, or become, subject to such extraordinaryrisks that they might properly be excluded from the operation of the proposedlegislation.35. We believe that such exceptional cases are likely to be very few, but we thinkit important the new legislation should contain provisions for defining what articles,voyages, or methods of carriage ought to be excepted from its operation on the groundthat the risks attached to the carriage or voyage are so new or uncertain that it is inexpedientthat the Act should apply; and further that, inasmuch as such risks will in mostcases be likely to become ordinary risks as the trade in question develops, there shouldbe power to remove such exceptions.36. Extent of Physical Limits within which Liability should obtain. The governingterms of the existing Dominions legislation on this subject are to the effect that theowner, manager, agent, master, or charterer of any ship must not be relieved from liabilityfor loss or damage arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the proper loading,stowage, custody, care, or delivery of goods received by him to be carried in or bythe ship, nor must the obligations of the master, officers, agents, or servants of any ship