Martini v. Macondray

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Transpo
E2024 Professor Reyes

Martini v. Macondray
G.R. No. 13972 – July 28, 1919
En banc | Street, J.
Topic: Common Carriers; Responsibilities Over Goods of a Common Carrier; Exemption from Liability
Parties:
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
G. Martini, Ltd. (Martini) Macondray & Co. (Inc.) (Macondray)
Case Summary:
Martini sought Macondray to be liable for the damage of the cases of chemical products it shipped on board
the latter, as it was carried on deck instead of stowed in the hold. Evidence showed that the bills of lading
were clearly stamped with the words “on deck at shipper’s risk” and Martini had the opportunity to have the
cargo discharged, but did not do so.
The SC decided on whether Martini gave its consent and whether Macondray was liable for the damages.
For the first issue, Martini gave its consent as it was bound by the bills of lading in the form in which they
were issued. Martini was duly affected with notice as to the manner in which the cargo was shipped; no
complaint, however, was made until after the bills of lading had been negotiated at the bank. Even upon
discovery, there was time to stop the shipment, but Maritni failed to give the necessary instructions, thereby
manifesting acquiescence in the accomplished fact.
For the second issue, Macondray was not liable for the damages. Jurisprudence (See Notes) sustain the
proposition that where the shipper consents to have his goods carried on deck, he takes the risks of any damage
or loss sustained as a consequence of their being so carried. It is indisputable that the goods were injured
during the voyage and solely as a consequence of their being on deck instead of the hold. The loss must
therefore fall on the owner.
Doctrine:
Where cargo is, with the owner's consent, transported on the deck of a sea-going vessel upon a bill of lading
exempting the ship's company from liability for damage, the risk of any damage resulting from carriage on
deck, such as the damage caused by rain or the splashing aboard of sea water, must be borne by the owner.
FACTS OF THE CASE

Martini arranged with Macondray for shipment of 219 cases of chemical products from Manila to Kobe, Japan.
Upon arrival at the port of destination, it was found that the chemicals had suffered damage from the effects
of fresh and saltwater.
Martini contended that it was Macondray’s duty to stow the cargo in the hold, and not to place it in an exposed
position on the open deck. Macondray averred that by the contract of affreightment the cargo was to be carried
on deck at the shipper’s risk; in addition, the face of each bill of lading is clearly stamped with a rubber stencil
“on deck at shipper’s risk.” Macondray relied upon par. 19 of the bills of lading, which states:
“19. Goods signed for on this bill of lading as carried on deck are entirely at shipper’s risk, whether
carried on deck or under hatches, and the steamer is not liable for any loss or damage from any cause
whatever.”
Martini insisted that the cargo should have been carried in the ordinary manner (in the ship’s hold), and it
never gave its consent for the goods to be carried on deck.
• Martini applied to Macondray for necessary space on the steamship and received a shipping order; one
part of this document contained a form which, when signed by the mate, would constitute the mate’s
receipt showing that the cargo had been taken on.
• Ordinarily, the shipper is supposed to produce this receipt to the agents of the ship’s company, who
then issue the bill of lading to the shipper. When, however, the shipper desires to procure the bill of
lading before the mate’s receipt, it is customary for him to enter into a written obligation, binding
himself to abide by the terms of the mate’s receipt.
o In this case, the mate’s receipt did not come to Martini’s hand until Monday night, but as
Martini was desirous of obtaining the bills of lading on the Saturday morning preceding so that
he might negotiate them at the bank, a request was made for the delivery of the bills of lading
on that day.
o Martini was then required to enter into a written obligation (“letter of guarantee”). In
conformity with the purpose of this document, the bills of lading were issued and the negotiable
copies were negotiated at the bank by Martini for 90% of the invoice value of the goods. As
already stated, the bills of lading contained on their face “on deck at shipper’s risks”; the mate’s
receipt also bore the notation “on deck at shipper’s risk”.
• Martini insisted that it had no time agreed for the cargo to be on deck, and its manager, G. Martini,
says that the first intimated he had of this was on Saturday afternoon, when he examined the
nonnegotiable copies of the bills of lading and discovered the words “on deck at shipper’s risk”. Upon
seeing this, he called the attention of Codina, an employee whose duty it was to attend to all shipments
of merchandise and had entire control of all matters relating to the shipping.
o Codina pretended that he was unaware that the cargo was being stowed on deck.
o They sent two letters to Macondray, with the same tenor, but the second one having this
statement:
"It is the prevailing practice that, whenever a cargo is being carried on deck, shipowners
or agents give advice of it to shippers previous to shipment taking place, and obtain
their consent to it. If we had been advised of it, shipment would not have been effected
by us. We regret very much this occurrence, but you will understand that in view of
your having acted in this case on your own responsibility, we shall have to hold you
amenable for any consequences that may be caused from your action."
o Macondray, upon receiving the first letter, called Codina and informed him that Macondray
could not accept the cargo for transportation otherwise than on deck, and if Martini were
dissatisfied, the cargo could be discharged.
The present action was instituted by Martini to recover the amount of the damage. The CFI rendered judgment
in favor of Martini; Macondray appealed.
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N Martini gave its consent to carry the cargo on the ship’s deck—YES.
• Based on the evidence, Martini consented for the cargo to go on deck. Codina must have known from
the tenor of the guaranty that he signed that Macondray had reserved the right to carry the cargo on
deck, and when the bills of lading were delivered to Martini, they plainly showed that the cargo would
be so carried.
• Martini was duly affected with notice as to the manner in which the cargo was shipped; no complaint,
however, was made until after the bills of lading had been negotiated at the bank. Even upon discovery,
there was time to stop the shipment, but Maritni failed to give the necessary instructions, thereby
manifesting acquiescence in the accomplished fact.
o It is inferable that one reason why Martini allowed to be carried away without being discharged
was that the bills had been discounted and to stop shipment would have entailed the refunding
of money which the bank had advanced; another reason was that Martini thought he discerned
the possibility of shifting the risk so as to make it fall upon Macondray’s company.
• If Martini promptly informed Macondray of their resolve to have the cargo discharged, and Macondray
nevertheless permitted the ship to sail without doing so, there would have been some ground for
Martini’s contention that its consent had not been given for the goods to be carried on deck. However,
Martini did nothing whatever looking towards the discharge of the cargo. Martini must be held to have
assented to the shipment of the cargo on deck and they are bound by the bills of lading in the form in
which they were issued.
W/N Macondray can be held liable for the damage—NO.

• Jurisprudence (See Notes) sustain the proposition that where the shipper consents to have his goods
carried on deck, he takes the risks of any damage or loss sustained as a consequence of their being so
carried.
o ITCAB, it is indisputable that the goods were injured during the voyage and solely as a
consequence of their being on deck instead of the hold. The loss must therefore fall on the
owner.
o However, upon general principle, the ship’s owner might be held liable for any damage directly
resulting from a negligent failure to exercise the care properly incident to the carriage of the
merchandise on deck. If it had been shown that, notwithstanding the stowage of the goods on
deck, damage could have been prevented by the exercise of proper skill and diligence in the
discharge of the duties incumbent on the ship, the ship’s owner might still be held liable. In
this case, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to allege and prove negligence if his cause of action
is founded on negligence of this character.
• ITCAB, it is apparent that the damage was caused by rain and seawater, the risk of which is inherently
incident to carriage on deck, in which case Macondray (the defendant) cannot be held liable. It is not
permissible for the court to attribute negligence in the absence of any allegation or proof of negligence.
o By the terms of par. 19 of the bills of lading, the ship is not to be held liable in the case of
goods signed for as carried on deck for any loss or damage from any cause; however, this
provision would not have protected the ship form liability for the consequences of negligent
acts, if negligence had been alleged nad proved.
RULING
Judgment appealed from is reversed; Macondray is absolved from the complaint.
NOTES
• Case of The Paragon – shipper did not give his consent for carriage on deck, but the master of the ship
did so; a storm having arisen, it became necessary to jettison them but no cargo in the hold was lost.
The ship was held liable:
“In every contract of affreightment, losses by the dangers of the seas are excepted from the
risks which the master takes upon himself, whether the exception is expressed in the contract
or not (fortuitous events)…But then the general law is subject to an exception, that wen the
inevitable accident is preceded by a fault of the debtor or person bound without which it would
not have happened, then he becomes responsible for it.”
“The master is responsible for the safe and proper stowage of the cargo, and there is no doubt
that by the general maritime law he is bound to secure the cargo safely under deck…”
• Van Horn v. Taylor – goods were stowed on deck were lost in a collision, but the court found that the
ship carrying the goods was not at fault, and that the shipper had notice of the fact that the cargo was
being carried on deck.
• Case of The Thomas P. Thorn – tobacco was received upon a canal boat, with the understanding that
it was to be carried on deck covered with tarpaulins; upon arrival at its destination, it was found
damaged by water as a consequence of rains. At the same time a quantity of malt stowed below deck
on the same voyage was uninjured. The vessel was not held liable for the wetting of the tobacco, as
“evidence shows that all reasonable care was taken of the tobacco during its transportation; that the
manner of stowing and covering it was known to and assented to by the shipper; and the inference is
warranted that the injury arose, without the fault of the carrier, from rain, to which merchandise
transported on deck must necessarily be in some degree exposed.”
• Gould v. Oliver - "Where the loading on deck has taken place with the consent of the merchant, it is
obvious that no remedy against the shipowner or master for a wrongful loading of the goods on deck
can exist. The foreign authorities are indeed express; on that point. And the general rule of the English
law, that no one can maintain an action for a wrong, where he has consented or contributed to the act
which occasioned his loss, leads to the same conclusion."

Martini v. Macondray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martini v. Macondray

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martini v. Macondray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Transpo

E2024 Professor Reyes

FACTS OF THE CASE

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N Macondray can be held liable for the damage—NO.

You might also like