In Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 470, the chief justice evidently took the view that the shipper of goods in a general ship impliedly contracts that the goods shipped shall not be injurious to other goods shipped in the usual course of lading a ship, and that this rule is not affected by the fact that the skipper had innocently shipped dangerous goods without knowledge of their true character. This principle is a sound one. It throws the loss upon the party who generally has the best means of informing himself as to the character of the article shipped. A different rule might encourage negligence on the part of the shipper, and even induce him to try experiments with articles unknown to commerce, if he could set up his ignorance of the real character of the articles as a defence to any damage caused by the shipment This ease is not between the shipper and the shipowner; but the rule applies equally well to the ease of a charterer. He hires the whole ship, and has a right to put on board a full cargo, and he must not put on board goods which will injure the ship, and cause her owners to become responsible to other shippers for damage done. Decree for libellant for money paid by him for other goods damaged, and for extra expense incurred in getting out the mastic.
Pierce v. Winsor
2 Sprague 35
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...1861Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.