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

PART II - HAGUE RULES 423Article 4 (2) (p) - Latent defectsARTICLE 42. Ni le transporteur ni le navire neseront responsables pour perte oudommage résultant ou provenant:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p) de vices cachés échappant àune diligence raisonnable;ARTICLE 42. Neither the carrier nor the shipshall be responsible, for loss ordamage arising or resulting from:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p) latent defects not discoverableby due diligence;ILA 1921 Hague ConferenceText submitted to the Conference[none]Second day’s proceedings - 31 August 1921[154]Mr. Knottenbelt: I wanted to propose an addition here. Once taking the principlethat we make an enumeration, I think it is the opinion of the Dutch shipowners that itwould be of interest to add “latent defect”. That is always to be found in all bills of lading.The Chairman: Latent defect of what?Mr. Knottenbelt: Of the ship; that the ship is not seaworthy.The Chairman: Is that a latent defect at the time of sailing? Because if it is I imagineshe is not seaworthy. I thought we had dealt with that.Mr. Knottenbelt: It is in all bills of lading. If that is omitted I think there is somedanger that the judge will take it that it was our opinion not to cover the owner againstlatent defects of ship and machinery.The Chairman: Mr. Knottenbelt. You will be a member of the Drafting Committee,I hope. Can you raise it there?Mr. Knottenbelt: I think so, if it is accepted as possible to exchange views upon it.The Chairman: I do not think the Committee would desire to exclude the questionif it were not in a position to deal with it now for want of time to understand it.Mr. Knottenbelt: Certainly; I prefer that the Committee decides it, Mr. Chairman.Lord Phillimore: Might I point out I think that the gentleman’s difficulty is a latentdefect in seaworthiness?Sir Norman Hill: Yes.Lord Phillimore: That is met by section 1. He is not to be liable for damage arisingfrom unseaworthiness unless the damage [155] is caused by his want of due diligence.If it is a really latent defect there is no want of due diligence in not discoveringit.Mr. Knottenbelt: It does not follow that every latent defect constitutes unseaworthiness.It is possible that there is a latent defect which does not make the ship unseaworthy,and still leads to damage.The Chairman: Not according to the English view, because a ship to be seaworthymust not only be fit to keep the seas, but she must be fit to carry her cargo and carrythe appropriate cargo; and if it is a latent defect which injures the cargo it is a defectof seaworthiness.Mr. Knottenbelt: I think there are many of these items to be brought under a gen-