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

156 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesour cargo interests not only have we to consult our cargo underwriters who are not allin London but we have also to consult independent shippers which means consultationamong Chambers of Commerce. You cannot do that in a minute but it has all beendone and what we are putting before you is the supported view of our Association.Now may I refer you to the British amendment which I have got in our own reportand I trust it is exactly the same in the book before you. What we are suggesting is thisand I should say that our suggested amendment embodies all these principles which Ihave explained to you already. We think that Article (3)1 should be amended byadding a proviso directly after sub-paragraph c. I am quoting of course from the 1924Convention as it is at present drafted and our paragraph is necessarily a little lengthybecause we have to keep to these principles but we have endeavoured to make it asconcise as possible.[146-150]Provided that if in circumstances in which it is appropriate to employ an independentcontractor including a classification society the carrier has taken care to employone of repute the carrier shall not be deemed to have failed to exercise due diligencesolely by reason of act or omission on the part of the said independent contractor, hisservant or his agent including any independent sub-contractor, his servant or his agentin respect of the construction repair or maintenance of the ship or any part thereof orof her equipment. Nothing contained in this proviso was absolving the carrier fromtaking such precautions by way of supervision or inspection as may be reasonable inrelation to any work carried out by such independent contract as aforesaid. Now wethink gentlemen, that that does the trick, and you will notice particularly the stress thatI laid upon the word “solely” because there may be circumstances in which the carrierhas appointed a ship repairer of repute but there has been negligence on the part ofone of the employees of the ship repairer, but there are other factors which enable thecourt to hold that the carrier or his servant have themselves been negligent and if allthat can be said against the carrier is that in the circumstances a reputable ship repairerhas been negligent then the carrier is not to be deemed to have failed to have exerciseddue diligence.I would point out that we are only working for a very limited relief, a relief whichall our cargo interests consider to be fair and reasonable. I felt, as this is the most importantpoint in our humble opinion before the Commission, that it was necessary toensure that there was no misunderstanding as to the point of view which we areputting forward. Thank you.[151]M. Le Président. Messieurs, avant de poursuivre la discussion, je voudrais faireune observation personnelle. Ainsi que vous le savez, la Commission internationale, serendant compte de l’importance du problème qui vient d’être invoqué, avait expriméle désir qu’une enquête soit faite au sujet de la jurisprudence et de l’opinion dans lesdifférents pays sur cette question. La Commission internationale a bien voulu me demanderde recueillir des renseignements à ce sujet et de faire un rapport dont le testeext d’ailleurs inséré dans son propre rapport.Je voudrais signaler que, par suite d’un malentendu que je regrette vivement, il n’estpas fait mention dans mon rapport de l’état de la jurisprudence en Allemagne. Je le regretted’autant plus que, suivant les renseignements que j’ai, la situation en Allemagneest assez différente de celle des autres pays puisque, si je ne me trompe - et nos collèguesallemands voudront bien rectifier si je commets une erreur - en Allemagne la jurisprudenceadmet une solution contraire à celle adoptée dans l’arrêt du “Muncaster Castle”.