Knott v Botany Mills case brief summary
Supreme Court, 1900
- Bales of wool were taken on board at Buenos Ayres and were stowed in a temporary wooden bulkhead which wasn’t tight.
- The ship also took wet sugar.
- The wool was damage by the sugar drainage.
- The ship was seaworthy and the damage was caused by negligence of those in charge of the ship and cargo.
Whether this damage to the wool was “loss or damage arising from negligence fault, or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care or proper delivery or cargo” within the first section of Harter Act?
Whether was “damage or loss resulting from fault or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel” within the third section of that act?
Do the words in the first section “any vessel transporting merchandise or property from or between ports of the US and foreign ports” include a foreign vessel transporting merchandise from a foreign port to a port of the US?
- The damage arose from negligence in loading or stowage for the cargo and not from fault or error in the navigation or management of the ship.
- There was no fault or defect in the vessel herself.
- The ship was seaworthy. The negligence consisted in stowing the wool far forward without taking care subsequently that no changes of loading should bring the ship down by the head.
- The ship and her owner must therefore answer for the damage.
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.