Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Time CP - 第五十一篇 (Both to Blame)
Time CP - 第五十一篇 (Both to Blame)
第五十一篇
双方有责碰撞条款
(Both to Blame Clause)
(NYPE 46 第 160 行至第 166 行)
------------------------------------------------
If the ship comes into collision with another ship as a result of the negligence of the
other ship and any act, neglect or default of the Master, mariner, pilot or the servants
of the Carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship, the owners of the
goods carried hereunder will indemnify the Carrier against all loss or liability to the
other or non-carrying ship or her owners in so far as such loss or liability represents
loss of, or damage to, or any claim whatsoever of the owners of said goods, paid or
payable by the other or non-carrying ship or her owners to the owners of said goods
and set off, recouped or recovered by the other non-carrying ship or her owners as
part of their claim against the carrying ship or carrier.”
51.1 租约中订立双方有责碰撞条款的原因
1
The Milan (1861) Lush. 388; 31 L.t.Ad. 105; 5 LT 590.
1
期租合約 – 修訂版
1
The Atlas, 93 U.S. 302, 215 (1816).
2
这一个普通法的基本原则近年来颇富争议, 并有很大的压力去作出更改,就是有部分疏忽/过错
的一方只需要对无辜方承担按比例分摊的赔偿责任。 麻烦是出自有大量的专业人士在近年来被
无辜方起诉并要求赔偿所有的损失,例如是一家上市公司倒闭,大批的受害方就起诉该公司的
审计师/会计师,虽然后者会有的过错只占 1%,但他仍要赔偿受害方的所有损失。反正这些专业
人士由于有责任保险,故此也赔得起。但这就带来了 80 年代开始专业疏忽的保险费倍增,而且
有不少保险公司退出这个市场,导致投保也有困难。英国政府曾在这一个问题上作出研究并发
表了名为《DTI, Feasibility Investigation of Joint and Several Liability (London: HMSO, 1996)》的报告,
看来是不支持改革为按疏忽/过错比例分摊赔偿责任的要求。另注意是船舶碰撞属于侵权行为,
所以不存在订约自由可去作出改变。所以货方只要在美国法律下被视为是无辜方,好像人命伤
亡一样,就可以在对方船舶只要有 1%或 5%极轻微的疏忽/过错下,已足够去向她成功索赔所有
的货物损失了。
3
The Chattahoochee, 173 U.S. 540 (1898).
2
期租合約 – 修訂版
大家的索赔都成功的话, 即是甲船的货方早以侵权在美国法院向乙船追索
到手的 2 千万美元, 又要根据运输合同的上述条款再吐出来 1 千万美元还给甲船。
大家都兜了一个大圈, 返回原地, 只是让律师得益。
51.2 双方有责碰撞条款的效力
所以 NYPE 93 在第 31 条款仍是有本条款的。
1
United States v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.,343 U.S. 236, 1952 AMC 659 (1952).
2
The Sky Reefer 515 U.S. 1995 AMC 1817 (19.6.1995).
3
American Union Transport Inc. United States , 1976 AMC 1480 (N.D.Cal. 1976); Alamo Chemical Transp.
Co. v. The Overseas Valdes, 1979 AMC 2033, 469 F. Supp. 203 (E.D.La. 1979).
4
Allseas Maritime v. The Mimosa, 574 F. Supp. 844 (S.D. Text. 1993).