claimant’s actions result in his acts being regarded as the cause of the damage complained of. For example, in Lambert v Lewis, a retailer sold a defective towing hitch to the plaintiff, a farmer, who continued to use it after becoming aware of its dangerous condition. When the defective hitch was the cause of an accident, it was held that plaintiff’s action should fail because his own negligence in continuing to use the towing hitch was sufficient to sever the chain of causation. In contrast, if the action taken by the claimant is regarded as perfectly reasonable in the circumstances, it is unlikely that his act will be regarded as a break in the chain of causation. In Compania Naviera Maropan v Bowaters, the parties entered into a

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-248

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

claimant’s actions result in his acts being regarded as the cause of the damage complained of. For example, in Lambert v Lewis, a retailer sold a defective towing hitch to the plaintiff, a farmer, who continued to use it after becoming aware of its dangerous condition. When the defective hitch was the cause of an accident, it was held that plaintiff’s action should fail because his own negligence in continuing to use the towing hitch was sufficient to sever the chain of causation. In contrast, if the action taken by the claimant is regarded as perfectly reasonable in the circumstances, it is unlikely that his act will be regarded as a break in the chain of causation. In Compania Naviera Maropan v Bowaters, the parties entered into a

ABSTRACT

In Compania Naviera Maropan v Bowaters,10 the parties entered into a contract to charter a ship for the purposes of a particular voyage. The defendant charterers were in breach of that contract by nominating an unsafe loading place for the ship. The ship’s master thought that the point of loading was unsafe, but nonetheless relied on the assurance given by the defendant’s experienced pilot that it was safe. Subsequently, the ship was damaged and it arose for decision whether the master’s actions broke the chain of causation. The Court of Appeal held that there was no such break as the actions of the master were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances:

Compania Naviera Maropan v Bowaters [1955] 2 QB 68, CA, p 95 Hodson LJ: I come now to the questions of law. The charterers contend that the charterparty contained no warranty of safety, express or implied, and that if the loading place was unsafe the master went there of his own choice, and the shipowners cannot recover for the damage to the ship. Clause 1 of the charterparty provided that the ship should ‘proceed to not more than two approved loading places as ordered in Newfoundland on the East coast ... or so near thereunto as she may safely get, and there load, always afloat, or safe aground where customary for vessels of similar size and draft, from the agents of the said charterers, not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackle apparel, provisions and furniture, a full and complete cargo of pulpwood maximum four feet lengths (inclusive of a deck load at full freight but at charterers’ risk). Charterers have the right to order the ship to load at two safe berths or loading places or one safe berth or loading place combined with one safe anchorage in the same loading place without extra freight’ ...