II. But in the latter case the allowance does not expressly extend to
damage sustained while stored on land. Whether the law would require
contribution to a loss of goods, say, by thieves or by fire, while landed
for repairs, is not clear. Where the landing has been necessitated by a
G.A. act, as cutting away masts, it would seem that the loss ought to be
made good, as being a result of the special risks to which those goods have
thereby been exposed. The risks which they would have run if they had
remained on board throughout are taken into account, as will presently
appear, in estimating _how much_ of the damage is to be made good.
Where cattle were taken into a port of refuge in Brazil, owing to
accidental damage to the ship, with the result that they could not legally
be landed at their destination (Deptford), and had to be taken to another
port (Antwerp), at which they were of much less value, this loss of value
was allowed in G.A. (_Anglo-Argentine &c. Agency_ v. _Temperley Shipping
Co._, 1899, 2 Q.B. 403).
The case of a stranded ship and cargo often gives rise to difficulty as to
whether the cost of operations to lighten the ship, and afterwards to get
her floated, should be treated as G.A. expenditure, or as expenses
separately incurred in saving the separate interests. The true conclusion
seems to be that either the whole operation should be treated as one for
the common safety, and the whole expense be contributed to by all the
interests saved, or else the several parts of the operation should be kept
distinct, debiting the cost of each to the interests thereby saved. Which
of these two views should be adopted in any case seems to depend upon the
motives with which the earlier operations (usually the discharge of the
cargo) were presumably undertaken. It may, however, happen that this test
cannot be applied once for all. Take the case of a stranded ship carrying a
bulky cargo of hemp and grain, but carrying also some bullion. Suppose this
last to be rescued and taken to a place of safety at small expense in
comparison with its value. It may well be that that operation must be
regarded as done in the interest simply of the bullion itself, but that the
subsequent operations of lightening the ship and floating her can only be
properly regarded as undertaken in the common interest of ship, hemp, grain
and freight. In such a case there will be a G.A. contribution towards those
later operations by those interests.
|