Why is the fault of the captain, crew and pilot, but the carrier can be exempted from liability?

This question seems to start with the history of shipping. In the early days, when the navigation technology was not advanced, the risk of navigation was very large, but relatively, the transportation volume of a shipping was larger than that of other modes of transportation, and the profit was also greater, but this benefit was the cargo side, and the ship side only took a little freight. It is not easy to do this voyage, and the captain, crew and other carriers are faced with life-threatening work.

Moreover, there are many uncertain risk factors at sea, human capacity is limited, and there will be errors in judgment, etc., and the carrier cannot say that the transportation is not successful and is responsible, which is too unfair. You think, I risk my life to transport for you, and if I succeed, I will have to pay a little freight, and if it is not successful, I will have to bear the responsibility, so who wants to do the shipping and transportation business? Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the ship, the navigation fault during this voyage can be exempted.

In modern society, China is a big country in international shipping, a big country in the ship, that is, a big country in the carrier, so China's "Maritime Law" is a combination of the Hague Rules and the Hamburg Rules in China's favor. The Hague Rules mainly protect the interests of shipping owners, because they are rules developed in the early days of capitalism, and the Hamburg Rules mainly protect the interests of cargo interests, because they mainly protect the interests of goods from developing countries. China is not only a developing country, but also a big shipping country, so it has gathered the rules of both sides and legislated to protect its own best interests.

Besides, the carrier is actually the captain and crew in terms of operation.

In this area of learning, you can read a little more books to strengthen your understanding.

Yes, I have thought about this for many years, and I have taken the exam for many years, although I have answered them correctly, but I am not convinced, why am I exempted? I don't think anyone would admit this rule, but they would all memorize it.

Personally, I feel that it is an international thing, a foreign thing, and it doesn't matter if it's right or not, just use itAnyway, it's very difficult to understand, not only this one, but a lot of things in international law, if you look at it with our Chinese thinking, it is obviously wrong, but it does the opposite. And the relevant textbooks don't explain it, you only have to memorize it.

I'm also annoyed.

China adopts the Hamburg Rules and the Hague Rules, which are so stipulated, because China is a big shipping country and protects the best interests of carriers.

The ship's failure to obtain a qualified duty certificate violates the carrier's responsibilities and has not undergone the corresponding professional and technical training.

During his work, Fan Mouguang did not undergo the corresponding professional and technical training, did not obtain the qualified crew job certificate, and illegally performed the duties of ship loading management and ship moving ruler reed.

A captain is a person appointed or hired by the owner of a ship to be responsible for all things on board.

1. Cabin No. 1: Exempt.

The Hague Rules provide for the exemption of shipowners, the first basic obligation of which is the seaworthiness obligation. Namely, the responsibility for making the ship seaworthy.

Specific requirements for the obligation to change: aThe vessel is suitable for navigation before and at the time of sailing; b.Crew staffing, ship equipment and ** appropriate.

In this case, the cause of the flooding in the No. 1 compartment was a crack in the screws under the intact nut, and the vessel was considered seaworthy by a qualified surveyor before sailing. Therefore, the ship party is exempted from liability. (See Hague Rules – Carrier Exemptions, Item 16:.)

Potential shortcomings that cannot be discovered despite due diligence. ）

2. Cabin No. 3: Bear the responsibility for negligence.

Item 1 of the carrier's exemption under the Hague Rules provides for the act, omission or default of the master, crew, pilot or servant of the carrier in the course of sailing or managing the ship. This provision is limited to the act of managing vessels.

In this case, the cargo was damaged because a crew member failed to close the hatch cover of the No. 3 cargo hold, causing rainwater to enter the cargo hold. This act is entirely an act of managing goods. Therefore, it is not a matter for which the carrier is exempted, so the ship owner should bear the liability for negligence.

This is a question of imputation, and according to the information you gave, the detailed distribution of responsibility is as follows:

1. The responsibility of No. 1 is due to the crack under the intact nut, (as the title) is considered to be negligence, then it is necessary to find the responsibility of the negligent party, but it is not necessary to bear full responsibility, and the negligence is only applicable to the compensation of the negligent part.

2. No. 3 was caused by the crew's error, and the crew belonged to the ship, so the loss of No. 3 was attributed to the freighter.

The reason is judged in accordance with the principle of statutory imputation:

The principle of attribution refers to the reasons, standards or ultimately decisive elements on which the civil liability for tort is determined by the actor, the legislative guidelines that are implemented in the entire tort law and play a commanding role in various tort law norms, and the basic norms that judicial organs should follow in handling tort disputes.

And there are many kinds of imputation principles:

At present, the principle of attribution of state compensation applicable to various countries mainly includes the principle of fault, including subjective fault, objective fault, fault of duty or official fault, principle of illegality, principle of subjective fault plus illegality, principle of no fault, and liability for danger.

The degree of negligence and the cause of negligence are analyzed in detail.

No. The exemption also applies as long as the carrier's servants act within the scope of their employment or entrustment.

Article 51 of China's Maritime Law stipulates that the carrier shall not be liable for compensation if the loss or damage to the goods occurs during the period of responsibility due to one of the following reasons:

negligence on the part of the master, crew, pilot or other servant in the operation or management of the ship;

fire, except due to the fault of the carrier;

Act of God. danger or accident at sea or in other navigable waters;

war or armed conflict;

** or acts, quarantine restrictions or judicial seizures of competent authorities;

strikes, lockouts or restrictions on work;

rescuing or attempting to save life or property at sea;

the conduct of the shipper, the owner of the cargo or their ** person;

a defect in the natural character or inherent nature of the goods;

Poor packaging of goods or lack of or unclear markings;

potential defects of the vessel that have not been discovered after careful handling;

Other reasons not caused by the fault of the carrier or its employees or **persons.

From these 12 exemptions, it can be seen that whether the carrier is liable for the loss or damage to the goods during the period of responsibility depends on whether he, the master, the crew, other employees or ** persons are at fault. However, as an exception, the carrier may still be exempt from liability if the loss of or damage to the goods is caused by the negligence of the master, crew, other servants or persons in the operation or management of the ship, or if the fire is caused by their negligence. 、

Article 58 of the Maritime Law [Scope of Application] The provisions of this chapter on the carrier's defences and limitation of liability shall apply to any action brought against the carrier for the loss, damage or delay in delivery of the goods involved in the contract of carriage of goods by sea, regardless of whether the maritime claimant is a party to the contract or whether it is brought under contract or tort.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply to litigation brought against an employee or ** person of the carrier, and the act is within the scope of employment or entrustment upon proof by the employee or ** person of the carrier.