船舶適航能力

34J.Mar.l.&Com.497〕。urnalofMaritimeLawandCommerceJuly,2003CaseNote*497SEAWORTHINESS:ANEWCALCULUSFACTORSINENVIRONMENTALFRIENDLINESS:MOBILSHIPPING&TRANSPORTATIONCO.v.WONSILDLIQUIDCARRIERS,LTD.,190F3D64,1999AMC2705(2DCIR.1999)SusanHodqes[FNa1]Copyright?2003byJeffersonLawBookCompany;SusanHodgesINTRODUCTIONInMobilShippingTransportationCo.v.WonsildLiquidCarriersLtd.,[FN1]theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkintroducedanewcriterionfortheassessmentofseaworthiness.In1999,theadditionalconsideration—riskofenvironmentaldamage—receivedtheapprovaloftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealfortheSecondCircuit.[FN2]Whetherthefashionablenotionofenvironmentalseaworthinesswillbeconfirmedbyahighertribunal,oracceptedbyotherjurisdictions,remainstobeseen.Thecasehasleftsomethingfortwenty-firstcenturyjudgesandlawyerstoponderandevaluate.Onecansafelypredictthat,inourcurrentclimateofeco-friendliness,anycausethatsafeguardstheenvironmentwillreceiveahearing.Howeveritsadoptiondependsasmuchuponthestrengthofitsfoundationasuponthepersonalorientationofthejudgetryingthecase.Thepurposeofthiscasenoteistoexaminewhetherithasanyrealbasisinlawandtodiscussvariousrelatedaspectsofseaworthiness.在美孚船務(wù)運(yùn)輸有限公司訴Wonsild液體運(yùn)輸有限公司一案中，美國(guó)紐約南區(qū)地方法院提出了一個(gè)新的評(píng)估適航性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。1999年，將環(huán)境損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)作為一種額外考量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的觀點(diǎn)得到了美國(guó)第二巡回上訴法院的認(rèn)可。當(dāng)前流行的環(huán)境適航性的概念能否被上一級(jí)法院或其他法域所接受還有待觀察。這個(gè)案子給二十一世紀(jì)的法官和律師們留下了許多值得思考和評(píng)價(jià)的地方。我們可以放心地預(yù)測(cè)，在我們當(dāng)前這個(gè)主張環(huán)境友好的環(huán)境下，任何保護(hù)環(huán)境的因素都會(huì)得到聽(tīng)證。然而，它通過(guò)與否則會(huì)取決于其自身是否有牢靠的基礎(chǔ)以及法官審理此案時(shí)的個(gè)人傾向。本案例意在考察其是否有任何真正的法律依據(jù)并討論與適航性相關(guān)的各個(gè)方面。FACTSMobilShippingandTransportationCompany(“Mosat")charteredtheAlsterstern,adouble-hulledfreighter,fromWonsildLiquidCarriersLtd.(“Wonsild")forthecarriageoflubeoilfromEuropetoHongKongviaSingapore.Thecharterpartycontainedanexpresstermrelatingtoseaworthiness,thattheAlsterstern“shallbeingoodworkingorderandconditionandineverywayseaworthyandfitforthecarriageofthecargoatthecommencementofeachstageofthevoyage.[FN3]Theshiptravelledsafelyfrom*498EuropetoSingapore,butwhenshearrivedatSingapore,shecrashedintothedischargeberthandsustainedtwoseriouslesions,athirty-footlonggashinherouterhullninefeetabovethewaterlineandathirty-threefootlongindentationtwentyfeetabovethewaterline.TheaccidentresultedfromanunexpectedlossofpowerSoonaftertheaccident,asurveyorengagedbyWonsildinspectedthevesselonthreeoccasionsandultimatelydeterminedthattheshipwasfittocontinuehervoyagetoHongKong,butonlyif(1)shesailedatthesafestpossiblespeed;(2)shesailedinfavourableweather;and(3)thehulldamagewasmonitoredduringthevoyage.[FN4]美孚航運(yùn)運(yùn)輸公司("Mosat")特許一艘名為“Alsterstern"號(hào)的雙殼貨船，從Wonsild液體載體有限公司將潤(rùn)滑油從歐洲經(jīng)新加坡運(yùn)往香港。租船合同載有一條有關(guān)適航性的明示條款，即Alsterstern"在航行的每一階段的開(kāi)始都應(yīng)具備良好的工作秩序和條件，在各個(gè)方面適于航行且適合貨物運(yùn)輸。這艘船一路安全地從歐洲駛向新加坡，但當(dāng)它抵達(dá)新加坡時(shí)，它撞上了卸載泊位并造成了兩處嚴(yán)重的損壞，一處三十英尺長(zhǎng)的損壞位于水線上方九英尺，另一處長(zhǎng)三十三英尺位于水線上方二十英尺。事故源于一次意想不到的動(dòng)力損失。事故后不久，Wonsild聘請(qǐng)的測(cè)量師三次檢查船只，并最終確定，這艘船適于繼續(xù)去香港的航行，但必須滿足以下條件：(1)她以安全速度航行；(2)她在有利的天氣航行；(3)在航行期間監(jiān)測(cè)船體破損的情況。GoodweatherwasforecastfortheAlsterstern'santicipatedfour-dayjourneyfromSingaporetoHongKong.Howevershewouldhavetoundertakethe1400-milevoyageontheopenseawitha“jury-rigged”electricalsystemthatreliedontheship'semergencygenerator.ThemasteroftheAlstersternaccordinglyinformedMosatthatthevesselwas(initsun-repairedstate)readytoproceedtoHongKong.Insistingthatthevesselwasseaworthy,WonsildrefusedtorepairherwhereuponMosatdirectedWonsildtohavetheremainingoildischargedinSingapore.MosatpaidthefullfreightasifthecargohadbeentransportedtoHongKong,andincurredadditionalexpensesforoff-loadingtheoilatSingapore,andstoringitandobtainedasubstitutevesselforitstransporttoHongKong.MosatthencommeneedanactionforbreachofcontractallegingthatWonsildhadbreachedthecharterpartybyfailingtomaintaintheAldersterninaseaworthycondition.[FN5]天氣預(yù)報(bào)預(yù)測(cè)在Alsterstern計(jì)劃四天的從新加坡到香港的航行中將會(huì)有良好的天氣。然而，她將不得不使用一個(gè)依靠船舶應(yīng)急發(fā)電機(jī)進(jìn)行工作的“應(yīng)急"電子系統(tǒng)來(lái)進(jìn)行她長(zhǎng)達(dá)1400英里的航行。Alsterstern的主人因此通知摩薩特，該船(處于一種未修復(fù)狀態(tài)下)準(zhǔn)備前往香港。Wonsild堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為船舶處于適航狀態(tài)而拒絕維修船舶，于是摩薩特指示W(wǎng)onsild在新加坡將剩余的油全部卸載。摩薩特支付貨物運(yùn)輸至香港的全部運(yùn)費(fèi)，并支付了在新加坡卸載剩余機(jī)油并儲(chǔ)存，以及用另一艘船舶將其運(yùn)輸至香港的額外費(fèi)用。此后Mosat對(duì)Wonsild提起違約之訴，認(rèn)為其沒(méi)有使Aiderstern船舶處于適航狀態(tài)的從而違反了租船合同。THECOURTS'OPINIONSThecentrallegalissuewaswhethertheAlstersternwas,inherdamagedcondition,seaworthyforthevoyagetoHongKong.WasWonsildinbreachoftheexpresstermofthecharterpartyinrelationtocontinuiseaworthiness?[FN6]TheliabilityofWonsildwasthusessentiallydependentuponthefindingofthecourtregardingtheseaworthinessoftheship.Atthetrialcourt,*499JudgeMartinheldthatWonsildbreachedthecharterparty,becausetheAlstersternwasunseaworthy.Onappeal,WonsildarguedthatJudgeMartinhadappliedanincorrectlegalyardsticktodeterminethseaworthinessofitsship.JudgeMartinhadwritten:核心的法律問(wèn)題在于Alsterstern在受損情況下航行至香港能否被認(rèn)為“適航”。Wonsild到底有沒(méi)有違反租船合同中有關(guān)保持船舶適航性的明示條款？Wonsild的責(zé)任因此基本上取決于法院關(guān)于船舶的適航性的裁定。在庭審中，法官馬丁認(rèn)為Wonsild違反租船合同，因?yàn)锳lsterster不適航。在上訴中，Wonsild認(rèn)為法官馬丁適用了一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去認(rèn)定船舶不適航。法官馬丁這樣寫道：Indeterminingwhetheravesselisseaworthy,theCourtmustconsiderthenatureofthecargo.Ifthecargohadbeenmilk,thegashinthevessel'shullwouldnothavemadeitunseaworthy.Butinthelightoftheenvironmentaldamagethatcanresultfromamajoroilspill,itisappropriatetoimposeonvesselownersandoperatorsthehigheststandardsindeterminingwhenavesselisseaworthyforthepurposeoftransportingoil.TheCourtagreeswithMosat'sexperieneedstaffthattheriskposedbysendingouttoseaavesselloadedwithoilwithathirtyfootgashinitshullwastoogreat.[FN7]JudgeMartin,relyingprimarilyonTheSouthwark,[FN8]concludedthat“thedamagetotheAlsterstern'shulldidconstituteabreachofthecharterparty'swarrantythatthehullbeingoodconditionandfitforthecarriageofthecargo.[FN9]在認(rèn)定船舶是否適航時(shí)，法院必須考慮貨物的性質(zhì)。如果貨物是牛奶，那么船身的損壞并不會(huì)使船舶不適航。但是考慮到油品泄漏對(duì)于環(huán)境的破壞，在判定運(yùn)輸石油的船舶的適航性時(shí)，對(duì)船舶的所有者和運(yùn)輸者科以最高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)當(dāng)是一種合理的做法。法院同意摩薩特公司一位有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的工作人員的說(shuō)法，即讓一艘滿載石油卻存在一處三十英尺長(zhǎng)破損的船舶出海航行所構(gòu)成的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)過(guò)大。法官馬丁主要根據(jù)“南沃克”案得出如下結(jié)論:"Alsterstern的船體損壞構(gòu)成了對(duì)于租船合同中關(guān)于使船體處于良好狀態(tài)且適于運(yùn)輸?shù)谋ＷC條款的違反。Onappeal,JudgeMcLaughlin,whosupportedJudgeMartin'sdecision,[FN10]offeredafulleraccountofthelawconfirmingthattheheightenedriskofenvironmentaldamagewasindeedarelevantfactorwhenassessingseaworthiness.JudgeMcLaughlinwrote:在上訴中，法官麥克勞克林支持法官馬丁的意見(jiàn)，并對(duì)相關(guān)法律做了更充分的說(shuō)明并確認(rèn)在評(píng)估適航性時(shí)，對(duì)于環(huán)境損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的確是一個(gè)相關(guān)的考量因素。麥克勞克林法官這樣與道：Inthisenvironmentally-sensitiveera,considerationofthepotentialenvironmentalimpactofadisastercomportswithmodernnotionsofwhatgoesintothe“seaworthiness"calculus.TheSupremeCourt[FN11]hasdefinedseaworthinessaswhetheravesselis“reasonablyfittocarrythecargowhichshehasundertakentotransport."Byadoptinga“reasonablyfittocarrythecargo"standard,theCourthasindicatedthatthedistrictcourtshouldconsiderthenatureofthevessel'scargowhendeterminingwhetherthevesselcanreasonablyperformitsintendedduties.[FN12]Similarly,wehavenotedthat“seaworthiness"requiresthevesseltobeabletotransporttheliquidcargo“safely."Commonsensecounselsthat“safe”transportencompassesnotonlythevessel'sabilitytoprotectthecargo'sintegrity,butalsoitsabilitytotransportthecargowithoutthreateningtheenvironment.[FN13]在這個(gè)對(duì)于環(huán)境問(wèn)題相當(dāng)敏感的時(shí)代，對(duì)于災(zāi)難的潛在環(huán)境影響的考量必須與“適航性”的現(xiàn)代觀點(diǎn)兼容。最高法院這樣定義適航性：即一艘船在合理程度上適于運(yùn)載它所要運(yùn)輸?shù)呢浳?。最高法院采?合理地適合于運(yùn)載貨物"的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，意在使地方法院將貨物的性質(zhì)作為因素之一以判定船舶能否合理恰當(dāng)?shù)赝瓿深A(yù)期任務(wù)時(shí)。于此類似的是，我們注意到，"適航性"要求該船能夠“安全地”運(yùn)輸液體貨物。對(duì)于這一問(wèn)題，普遍的理解是“安全”運(yùn)輸不僅意味著船舶應(yīng)當(dāng)能夠保護(hù)貨物的完整性，還要求在船舶不危害環(huán)境的前提下運(yùn)輸貨物。*500ANALYSISThecourts'decisionthattheshipwasunseaworthyisundoubtedlycorrect.Althoughbothcourtscametotherightconclusion,theyadvaneedaninappropriateandunnecessarycriterionintheirdeterminationofseaworthiness.ThequestioniswhetherJudgesMartinandMcLaughlinwerewrongtoconsiderthehazardousnatureofthecargowhenevaluatingtheseaworthinessoftheAlsterstern.JudgeMartinreferredtoasolitarycase,TheSouthwark,[FN14]asthebasisofhisdecision;JudgeMcLaughlinreliedessentiallyontheancientbutwell-knowncase,TheSilvia,[FN15]andthemorerecentAmeradaHessCorp.v.S/TMobilApex,[FN16]asprecedentsfortheriskofenvironmentaldamagerule.Thus,itisnecessarytoscrutinisenotonlythelegalbasisofthedecisions,butalsothefactsofeachofthesecases.ThisexerciseisnecessarytoascertainwhetherthereisanyfoundationforthepropositionthattheriskofenvironmentaldamageisrelevanttoseaworthinessinacasesuchasthatoftheAlderstern.法院認(rèn)為這艘船是不適航的決定無(wú)疑是正確的。雖然兩個(gè)法院都得出了正確的結(jié)論，但他們?cè)谂卸ㄟm航性時(shí)增加了一個(gè)不適當(dāng)且不必要的評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。問(wèn)題在于，法官馬丁和麥克勞克林在評(píng)價(jià)Alsterstern的適航性時(shí)，將貨物的有毒性質(zhì)納入考量范圍的這一做法是否錯(cuò)誤。法官馬丁引用了“南沃克”案作為其判決的基礎(chǔ)；而法官麥克勞克林則基本上依賴于古老而著名的“西爾維婭”案和最近的“阿拉美達(dá)赫斯公司訴S/T美孚端”案作為適用環(huán)境損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)則的先例。因此，我們不僅需要審查這些判決的法律依據(jù)，還應(yīng)當(dāng)逐一審查所涉判例的具體事實(shí)。這一工作是十分必要的，因?yàn)檫@有助于我們確認(rèn)在處理類似Aiderstern案時(shí)，將環(huán)境損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與適航性聯(lián)系起來(lái)的觀點(diǎn)是否具有正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)。TheSilvia,decidedin1898,wasconcernedwithashipthathadsailedwithcertainglassportsclosedandsecured,buttheirironcoversleftopen.Thiswasdoneintentionally,inordertoallowlightintothatcompartmentshoulditbenecessarytogetanythingfromit.Duringthevoyage,theshipencounteredroughweather,andtheglasscoverofoneoftheportswasbroken,causingseawatertoentertheshipanddamagethecargoofsugar.TheissuewaswhethertheSilviawasseaworthywhenshesailedwithoutfirstlockingtheironcovers.“西爾維婭”案，于1898年判決，它所涉及的是一艘運(yùn)載著玻璃瓶的船舶。這些玻璃瓶是密閉且完好的，但他們的鐵蓋子是開(kāi)著的。這是有意為之的，目的在于使光線可以照進(jìn)船艙。在航行中，船遇到了極其惡劣的天氣，其中一件玻璃瓶被打碎，導(dǎo)致海水進(jìn)入船舶并損壞了所運(yùn)輸?shù)陌滋?。?wèn)題在于“西爾維婭”號(hào)在航行時(shí)不先鎖上鐵蓋子的情況下，是否是適航的。TheSupremeCourtstated,“Thetestofseaworthinessiswhetherthevesselisreasonablyfittocarrythecargowhichshehasundertakentotranspor，t."[FN17]TheCourtreliedontwofactorstoarriveatitsconclusionthattheshipwasseaworthy,thesecondofwhichmaynotatfirstsightbeobviousoreasilydiscernible.Thefirstrelatedtotheconditionoftheportglasscoversandtheironshutters;theCourtfound“nothing...tojustifyaninferencethattherewasanydefectineither[FN18]Thus,theSilviasatisfiedthetestofbeingstructurallysoundandwellequippedforthepurposeofprotectingshipandcargoagainsttheinroadsoftheseas.最高法院認(rèn)為，"檢驗(yàn)適航性與否的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是船舶是否適于運(yùn)輸其所承載的貨物。"法院依靠?jī)蓚€(gè)因素來(lái)判定一艘船舶是否適航，其中第二個(gè)因素可能乍看之下并不明顯。第一個(gè)因素涉及到玻璃瓶的蓋子和鐵制窗戶的情況，法院發(fā)現(xiàn)"沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)可以證明其存在缺陷。"因此，西爾維亞用于抵御海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)以保護(hù)船舶和貨物的緊密結(jié)構(gòu)和精良裝備符合適航性的要求。ThesecondinquiryconductedbytheCourtregardedtheaccessibilityoftheportholes.Sincethevessel'sshutterswereeasilyaccessibleandcouldbeclosedatamoment'snoticeontheapproachofastorm,shewasheldtobe*501seaworthy.Thoughtheportholeswerenotimmediatelyaccessible,theywerereadilyaccessible.Nothingintheconditionoftheship,therefore,renderedherunseaworthyinthisregard.[FN19]Thepreseneeofanobstruction(bycargoorfurniture)wouldhavebeenviewedasaffectingthephysicalconditionofaship.Ontheotherhand,afailuretoclosetheportholesduringavoyage,underthecircumstances,pertainedtocrewconductratherthantoseaworthiness,whichgenerallyrelatestotheconditionoftheship,herequipmentandcrew.Howeverthisisnottosaythatashipisnotunseaworthyifthecrewisuntrainedtoclosetheironshutterswhenanecessityarises,forsuchignoranceordisablingwantofknowledgewouldputadifferentcomplexiontothings:incompetenceandinefficiencyofmasterandcrewareclassicexamplesofunseaworthiness.[FN20]法院進(jìn)行的第二項(xiàng)調(diào)查涉及舷窗的可用性。由于船只的窗戶很容易打開(kāi)，并且能夠在風(fēng)暴靠近時(shí)迅速關(guān)閉，因?yàn)椤拔鳡柧S婭”號(hào)被認(rèn)為是適航的。雖然舷窗沒(méi)有被馬上打開(kāi)，但是打開(kāi)他們是相當(dāng)容易的。因此，從船舶自身?xiàng)l件這方面說(shuō)，沒(méi)有任何問(wèn)題可以導(dǎo)致她的不適航。障礙物的存在(如貨物或設(shè)備)會(huì)被視為影響船舶的運(yùn)行狀態(tài)的因素。另一方面，在航行期間如果無(wú)法關(guān)閉舷窗，這通常被認(rèn)為是船員的行為而不涉及適航性，因?yàn)檫@更多的是與船舶的狀態(tài)，設(shè)備和船員有關(guān)。然而，這并不是說(shuō)如果船員未經(jīng)訓(xùn)練從而導(dǎo)致必要時(shí)無(wú)法關(guān)閉鐵窗戶時(shí)，仍然可以被認(rèn)為是適航的。這種對(duì)于相關(guān)知識(shí)技能的不了解和不掌握會(huì)導(dǎo)致一個(gè)完全不同的局面：即船長(zhǎng)和船員相關(guān)知識(shí)能力的不勝任和低效率是導(dǎo)致不適航的經(jīng)典例子。TheSupremeCourtclarifiedTheSilviainInternationalNavigationCo.v.Farr&BaileyManufacturingCo.[FN21]Inthatcase,afailuretoshuttheportholesinacompartmentwasheldtohaverenderedavesselunseaworthy.ChiefJusticeFullerdistinguishedthefactsathandfromthoseinTheSilviasince:“thisisnotacasewhereitappearsthattheportwouldordinarilyhavebeenleftopen,tobeclosedastheexigencymightrequire,andwherefailuretocloseitduringthevoyagemightbeanerrororfaultinmanagemen”[FN22]TheChiefJusticedisclaimedanyimplication“thatfailuretocloseportholesnecessarilycreatesunseaworthiness.Thatdependsoncircumstances."[FN23]最高法院澄清了“西爾維婭"案。在“西爾維婭”案中，未能關(guān)閉船艙的舷窗被認(rèn)為已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致了船舶的不適航。首席法官富勒區(qū)分了本案和“西爾維婭"案的相關(guān)事實(shí):"這并非相同的情況，因?yàn)檫@些瓶子通常情況下是打開(kāi)的，只有在特殊情況下才可能要求蓋上，而當(dāng)航行過(guò)程中無(wú)法蓋上瓶子時(shí)就可能導(dǎo)致管理上的錯(cuò)誤。"首席法官否認(rèn)無(wú)法打開(kāi)舷窗必然導(dǎo)致不適航。這需要取決于具體情況。、NeitherTheSilvianorInternationalNavigationCo.mentionsthenatureofthecargoorriskofenvironmentaldamageasanecessarycomponentinthetestforseaworthiness.AccordingtothereasoningoftheCourt,ifaship'sportholesaresoundinconstructionandareeasilyaccessible,sheisseaworthy,whetherthecargobesugarorarsenic.Itisdifficulttoseehowenvironmentaldamage,howeverdevastating,canhaveabearingonthesea-worthinessofaship.Avessel'sdefensesagainsttheincursionsoftheseamustsurelybethesameregardlessofthenatureofthecargo:sheisorisnotcapableofencounteringtheordinaryperilsoftheseas.Therecannotbedegreesofseaworthiness,wherethesameship,atagiventimeandplace,*502maybeclassifiedasseaworthy(initsstrictsense)forthecarriageofonecargoandnotforanother.Atanyparticularmoment,ashipiseitherseaworthyorunseaworthytoenduretheordinarydangersandvicissitudesofavoyage.Sailingwithtwodeepopenwoundsinhersidecoupledwithaseriouslossofpowermustsurelybeunacceptable,evenifmilkwerecarriedonboardtheAlsterstern.Toputthematterinanotherway,nochartererwouldhaveaccepteddeliveryofthevesseltenderedinthatconditionatthecommencementofthecharterFurther,noprudentshipownerwouldsendhertoseainthatcondition.[FN24]Shewasunseaworthybyallaccounts.無(wú)論是西爾維亞還是國(guó)際航運(yùn)有限公司所提到的貨物的性質(zhì)或環(huán)境損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都不能作為檢驗(yàn)適航性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的必要成分。根據(jù)法院的推理，如果一艘船的舷窗構(gòu)造合理且易于打開(kāi)，那么她就是適航的，而不論貨物是糖還是砷。很難想象環(huán)境損害以及它的破壞性可以關(guān)系到船舶的適航性。無(wú)論貨物的性質(zhì)如何，船舶對(duì)于海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的抵御能力必須是一致的：即能否承受通常的海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。對(duì)于適航性不應(yīng)當(dāng)有程度上的劃分，也就是說(shuō)對(duì)于同一條船舶，在規(guī)定的時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)，不能因?yàn)樗\(yùn)輸某種貨物而非另一種貨物而判定她適航。在任何特定的時(shí)刻，一艘船舶對(duì)于抵御航行過(guò)程中的通常風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和災(zāi)難，它要么是適航的要么就是不適航的。Alsterstern在船舶一側(cè)有著兩處很深傷口和嚴(yán)重動(dòng)力損失的情況下仍然航行的做法是絕對(duì)不可接受的，即使其運(yùn)輸?shù)呐Ｄ檀娣庞诩装迳?。換句話說(shuō)，沒(méi)有承租人會(huì)在船艙開(kāi)始時(shí)接受一艘處于如此情況下的船舶的交付。進(jìn)一步說(shuō)，沒(méi)有任何一個(gè)船東會(huì)在這種情況讓他的船入海航行。她無(wú)論如何都是不適航的。InTheSilvia,JusticeGraydeliveredhisfamousand“commonlyaccepted"[FN25]definitionofseaworthiness:“[t]hetestof'seaworthiness'iswhetherthevesselisreasonablyfittocarrythecargowhichshehasundertakentotransport."[FN26]Thisbroadstatementutteredinthecontextofcargoworthiness(readwithAmeradaHess)hadobviouslyled(ormisled)JudgeMcLaughlininMobilShippingtoincludetheriskofenvironmentaldamageinhisassessmentoftheAlsterstern'sseaworthiness.ItisdoubtfulthatsuchathoughteverenteredJusticeGray'smind.在“西爾維婭”案中，格雷法官提出了他著名的且被廣泛接受的關(guān)于適航性的定義：檢驗(yàn)適航性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于這艘船在合理情況下是否適于運(yùn)載其將要運(yùn)輸?shù)呢浳?。關(guān)于適載能力的這一論述很明顯導(dǎo)致了麥克勞克林法官在“美孚船運(yùn)公司”案中將環(huán)境損害的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)納入到了其對(duì)于Alsterstern的適航性的評(píng)估當(dāng)中。而格雷法官是否持有這一觀點(diǎn)是存在疑問(wèn)的。InTheSouthwark,JusticeDaycommentedonhisunderstandingofJusticeGray'stestforseaworthinessinTheSilvia:在“南沃克”案中，戴法官闡述了他對(duì)于“西爾維婭"案中格雷法官所提出的檢驗(yàn)適航性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的理解：Asseaworthinessdependsnotonlyuponthevesselbeingstaunchandfittomeettheperilsofthesea,butuponitscharacterinreferencetotheparticularcargotobetransported,itfollowsthatavesselmustbeabletotransportthecargowhichitisheldoutasfittocarry,oritisnotseaworthyinthatrespect.Butforthespecialappliancesfurnishedbythevessel,perishablecargoes,suchasdressedbeefcouldnotbeshippedonlongvoyagesinhotweather.[FN27]由于適航性不僅取決于船舶用以抵抗海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的堅(jiān)固和適應(yīng)程度，還取決于所運(yùn)輸貨物的特定性質(zhì)特點(diǎn)，因此，船舶必須能夠適于運(yùn)輸其所承受的貨物，否則就此方面而言，她就是不適航的。但如果船舶并不具備特殊的設(shè)備，那么易腐敗的貨物如熟牛肉是不能在炎熱的天氣進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的海運(yùn)的。Thissummaryclearlysetsoutthetwoaspectsofseaworthiness.Thefirstrelatestowhatmaybetermedasseaworthinessproperlysocalled,namelyfitnesstoencountertheordinaryperilsofthesea,whilstthesecondrelatestofitnesstocarryaparticularcargo,commonlyreferredtoas“cargoworthiness."ThefirstposednoproblemsofrelevaneeinthecaseoftheAlderstern,butthesecondhasengenderedmisconceptions,whicharecapturedbytheSecondCircuitinMobilShipping:“[c]ommonsensecounselsthat'safe'transportencompassesnotonlythevessel'sabilitytoprotectthecargo'sintegrity,butalsoitsabilitytotransportthecargowithoutthreateningtheenvironment."[FN28]這一總結(jié)明確地提出了適航性的兩個(gè)方面。第一方面涉及到被稱之為“適航"這一概念的涵義,即適于抵御正常的海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而第二方面則是指適于運(yùn)輸特定的貨物，這通常被稱為“適載能力"?！暗谝慌c本案中的Alderstern無(wú)關(guān)，但第二方面容易產(chǎn)生誤解，就這一點(diǎn)第二巡回法院在美孚運(yùn)輸公司案中主要論述：“對(duì)于“安全"運(yùn)輸?shù)钠毡槔斫馐撬粌H意味著船舶應(yīng)當(dāng)能夠保護(hù)貨物的完整性，還要求在船舶不危害環(huán)境的前提下運(yùn)輸貨物?！?503JudgeMartin,whoreliedsolelyonTheSouthwarkforhiscargoofmilkexample,arguedthat“[i]ndeterminingwhetheravesselisseaworthy,theCourtmustconsiderthenatureofthecargo.[FN29]Exceptfordroppingthenameofthecase,heofferednoexplanationofitsrelevanee.Confinedtocargoworthiness,thisstatementiscorrect.ThecargoinTheSouthwarkwasdressedbeef,whichhadtobekeptchilledduringthevoyage;thus,thedisputewaswhethertherefrigeratingapparatusontheboardwascompetentforthispurpose.[FN30]JusticeDayinTheSouthwarkwasclearlydealingwithacaseofcargoworthinesswherethenatureofthecargowouldinevitablyplayapivotalrole.法官馬丁即那個(gè)僅僅依據(jù)“南沃克"案中的運(yùn)輸牛奶的例子做出判決的法官這樣認(rèn)為：當(dāng)法院在判定一艘船是否適航時(shí)，貨物的性質(zhì)是必須考慮的因素。除了提及案件的名稱，他并沒(méi)有對(duì)于他們之間的相關(guān)性做任何的解釋。如果僅限于適載能力而言，這一論述是正確的。“南沃克”案中運(yùn)輸?shù)呢浳锸窃谝牙鋬龅氖炫Ｈ?；因此，?zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)在于船舶甲板上的冷凍設(shè)備能否有效地確保冷藏效果的實(shí)現(xiàn)?！澳衔挚?案中的戴法官曾經(jīng)處理過(guò)一個(gè)有關(guān)適載能力的案件，在這個(gè)案件中，貨物的性質(zhì)不可避免地成為關(guān)鍵因素。ContrarytothesuggestionsofJudgesMartinandMcLaughlin,environmentalsafetywasnotmentionedinTheSilviaorTheSouthwarkasrelevantforaconsiderationofseaworthiness.InTheSouthwark,JusticeDayquotedanoldcase,TheThames,[FN31]that,“[a]stohercargo,seaworthinessisthatqualityofashipwhichfitsitforcarryingsafelytheparticularmerchandisewhichittakesonboard'.'Butthequotecontinuedthat,“[a]shipisimpliedlywarrantedtobeseaworthyquoadthatarticle."[FN32]Nodoubt,thiscommentreferredtocargoworthiness.Thereferenceto“safety"pertainstotheintegrityoftheshipinrelationtothesafetyoftheparticularcargo,thattheconditionoftheship(i.e.,thehold)willnotcausethecargo(nottheenvironment)tosufferanyharm.JusticeDayinTheSouthwarkwasindeedrightwhenhewarnedthattheword“seaworthy"is“obviouslynotahappytermtouse,exceptwithregardtothatconditionofthevesselwhichenablestheownertoavoidexposureofthecargototheperilsofthesea.[FN33]However,itisacceptedthat“themoreextendeduseofthetermhascometobewellrecognised."[FN34]Toavoidconfusionandmisunderstanding,thisaspectofseaworthinessshouldbereferredtoas“cargoworthiness,"withtheterm“seaworthiness"reservedexclusivelytodescribethecapabilityoftheshiptoenduretheperilsofthesea.Thetwoaspectsofseaworthinessaredistinetandseparate:seaworthinessinitsstrictsensereferstotheabilityoftheshiptobravethenaturalforcesoftheseas*504whereascargoworthinessreferstotheinternalconditionoftheshiptocarryaparticularcargowithoutsubjectingittoinjury.Theuseoftheterm“safe"istroublesomebecauseitembracesahostofotherconsiderationsthatmayhavelittleornothingtodowiththeseaworthinessofaship.[FN35]“Safety"and“seaworthiness"mayoverlap,butthetermsarenotsynonyms:anunseaworthyshipisunsafe,butanunsafeshipisnotnecessarilyunseaworthy.JudgeMcLaughlinalsoreliedonAmeradaHessCorp.v.S/TMobilApexinsupportofhisenvironmentaltheory—that“seaworthiness"requiredthatthevessel“beequippedtostoreandtransportthefluidsafely."[FN36]Inthatcase,acargoofnapthaleakedfromthepumproomintotheengineroomthroughanun-tightenedstuffingbox;sparksfromthemachineryintheengineroomignitedtheleakingnaphtha,causingfireandexplosion.AmeradaHesssuedtorecoverdamagesforthelossofaportionofitscargo.Theleakoccurredbecausethesealofapumpwasnotproperlytightenedwhenthecrewleftthepumproom.Theissuebeforethecourtwaswhethertherewasthenavailableasealthatwasgastightatalltimesandthatcouldhavebeenadjustedortightenedtobecomeliquidtightwhenthepumpwasnotinoperation.[FN37]Expertstestifiedthatitwasimpossibletodesignausablestuffingboxthatwouldbeliquidtightatalltimes.Inotherwords,therewasnosuchthingasafoolproofsealthatwouldpreventleakageshouldthecrewfailtotightenthestuffingboxbeforeleavingthepumpunattended.Thefactsofthiscaseclearlycallintoquestionthecargoworthinessoftheship,andnother“seaworthiness"inthestrictsenseoftheword.Theissuewaswhethertheshipwasfittoreceiveandcarrythecargoofnaphthawithoutcausingdamageorlosstothatcargo.Wassheseaworthyuoadthecargo?Byreasonofthefactthataleak-proofsealdoesnotexistforsuchastuffingbox,thecourtheld(andcorrectlyso)thatthevesselwasseaworthy—butinthe“cargoworthy"senseoftheterm.Inthelightofthethenprevailingknowledge,shewasfitforthecarriageofnaphtha:therewasnothingelsethecarrierscouldhavedone,intermsofequipment,topreventtheleakageofthecargofromthepumproomintotheengineroom.ThefactsoftheAmeradaHesscasedidnotraiseanyaspectofseaworthinessinitsliteralsenseorasrelatedtotheriskofenvironmentaidamage.Thespotlightwasclearlyontheinternalconditionoftheshipwithreferencetothesafetyofhercargo,andnotonthefitnessoftheshipis-a-vistheelements.Indeed,iftherewereavailableinthemarketasealthatwasleak-*505proof,thecourtwouldhavenohesitationinfindingthevesseluncargoworthyifherownershadfailedtouseit.JudgesMartinandMcLaughlineitherreadthejudgmentsoftheauthoritiestheycitedoutofcontext,ortheyreadtoomuchintothewordsofJusticeGrayinTheSilvia,orboth.Theywereprobablyledadriftbythenotiono“safety."Theundertakingofthecarrieristoprovide“seaworthy"ship,nottoprovidea“safe"shipor“safetransport."Theword“seaworthy"ispreciseandhasbeenaccordedaspecialmeaninginlaw;throughlongandestablishedusage,ithasbecomealmostatermofart.Unliketheconceptof“seaworthiness,"theword“safe"isageneralandloosetermcapableofembracingawiderangeofconsiderations,includingthatoftheenvironment.IftheexpressterminthecharterpartyhadbeenthatWonsildwastomaintainasafeship,then,perhaps,theremarksofthecourtsintheMobilShippingcouldbesustainable.Toprotectwaterways,itistemptingtointroduceanextraneousconsiderationsuchastheenvironmentintotheconceptofseaworthiness.Butisthereaplaceincommercialcontractsforsuchsentiments?Thoughtheaimishighlycommendable,itslegalbasisisquestionable.ORDINARYPERILSOFTHESEASThestandardtestforseaworthinessis,andhasalwaysbeen,theabilitytoencountertheordinaryperilsoftheseas.ThiscriterioniscapturedintheMarineInsuranceActof1906as:“[a]shipisdeemedtobeseaworthywhensheisreasonablyfitinallrespectstoencountertheordinaryperilsoftheseasoftheadventureinsured." [FN38]Thereisnosuchnotioninlawasafair-weathershipand,therefore,thefactthatashipliketheAlstersterncanonlytravelinfineweatherwillnotmakeherseaworthy.Inthisregard,itmaybehelpfultorefertoMissJayJay,[FN39]whereMr.JusticeMustill(ashethenwasknown),inamarineinsurancelitigation,notonlydescribedthevariablesinweatherconditionsbutalsolinkedtheirrelevaneetoseaworthiness.Hedivided“perilsoftheseas"intothreebroadcategories:“Abnormallybadweather."Heretheweatherliesoutsidetherangeofconditionswhichtheassuredcouldreasonablyforeseethatthevesselmightencounteronthevoyageinquestion.“Adverseweather":namely,weatherwhichlieswithintherangeofwhatcouldbeforeseen,butattheunfavourableendoftherange.Ineffect,theweatherisworsethancouldbehoped,butnoworsethatcouldbeenvisagedasapossibility.*506(iii)“Favourableweather":namely,weatherwhichlieswithinthatrange,butisnotbadenoughtobeclassedas'adverse.'[FN40]Theterm“perilsofthesea"invariablyappearswithoutqualificationinstandardhullpoliciesofmarineinsuranceasaninsuredrisk,[FN41]andgenerallyinbillsofladingasanexceptedloss.[FN42]Asanexceptioninthecontextofcarriage,theexpressionwasaptlydescribedbyJudgeRogersiTheGiuliatomean,“thoseperilswhicharepeculiartothesea,andwhichareofanextraordinarynatureorarisefromirresistibleforceoroverwhelmingpower,andwhichcannotbeguardedagainstbytheordinaryexertionsofhumanskillandprudenee."[FN43]“Perilsoftheseas"isdefinedintheMarineInsuranceActof1906as:“fortuitousaccidentsorcasualtiesoftheseas.Itdoesnotincludetheordinaryactionofthewindsandwave".[FN44]Thefirstpartofthisdefinitionclarifiesthattheconceptdoesnotcoverdeliberatedamage,andthesecondpartconfirmsthatitdoesnotcoverlossordamagecausedbywearand