Harter Act

A name commonly applied to the act of congress of February 13, 1893. It provides (§ 1) that agreements in a bill of lading relieving the owner, etc., of a vessel sailing between the United States and foreign ports, from liability for negligence or fault in proper loading, storage, custody, care, or delivery of merchandise, are void; (§ 2) that no bill of lading shall contain any agreement whereby the obligations of the owner to exercise due diligence, properly equip, man, provision and outfit a the obligations of the master, etc., carefully to handle, store, care for and deliver the cargo, are in any way lessened, weakened or avoided; (§3) that if the owner shall exercise due diligence to make such vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, neither the vessel nor her owners, etc., shall be liable for loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or management, nor for losses arising from dangers of the sea, acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent defect of the thing carried, or insufficiency of package, or seizure under legal process, or any act or omission of the shipper of the good.s, or from saving or attempting to save life at sea, or deviation in rendering such service. The act was the outgrowth of attempts made in recent years to limit as far as possible the liability of the vessel and her owners, by inserting in bills of lading stipulations against losses arising from unseaworthiness, bad stowage and negligence in navigation, and other forms of liability which have been held by the courts of England if not of this country to be valid as contracts even when they exempted the ship from the consequences of her own negligence. As decisions were made by the courts from time to time holding the vessel for non-excepted liabilities, new clauses were inserted in the bills of lading to meet these decisions until the common law responsibilities of carriers by sea had been frittered away to such an extent that several of the leading commercial associations both in this country and in England had suggested amendments to the maritime law in line with those embodied in the Harter Act; The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 16 Sup. Ct. 516, 40 L. Ed. 771, Before the passage of the Harter Act, it was the settled law that in the absence of special contract there was a warranty upon the part of the ship-owner that the ship was seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. The warranty was absolute and did not depend upon the knowledge of the owner or the diligence of his efforts to provide a seaworthy vessel; The Caledonia, 157 U. S, 124, 15 Sup. Ct. 537, 39 L. Ed. 644; The Irrawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 18 Sup. Ct. 831, 43 L. Ed. 130; after its pas.sage the act became the rule for cases within its terms; The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 24 Sup. Ct 1, 48 L. Ed. 65. The act applies only to questions arising be tween the vessel and shippers of cargo on board of her, and does not apply to cases of damage to cargo on another vessel; The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 16 Sup. Ct. 616, 40 L. Ed. 771; The Viola, 59 Fed, 632; id., 60 Fed. 296; The Berkshire, 59 Fed. 1007. It does not apply to stowage; The Palmas, 108 Fed. 87, 47 C. C. A. 220, nor to passengers’ claims for loss of baggage r The Rosedale, 88 Fed. 324; The Kensington, 88 Fed. 331; nor to claims for personal injuries; Moses v. Pack'* Here the shipowner who has done all that he can do to start off a well-fitted expedition, from liability for damages caused by faults or errors of his shipment after his ship has gone below the horizon and away from his personal observation; Benod. Adm. (4th ed.) 174. See Ship; Vessel.