Paterson (N.M.) and Sons Ltd. v. Mannix Ltd.

Paterson (N.M.) and Sons Ltd. v. Mannix Ltd.

In a voyage charter absent an express term shifting stowage responsibility, the owner/master retains the legal duty to receive and stow cargo; approval or inspection by ship's officers does not infer transfer of that duty; where weather was foreseeable, loss by failure of lashings due to negligent stowage is the owner's liability, not a peril of the sea excuse.

Citation
[1966] SCR 180
Parties
Defendant/appellant: N. M. Paterson and Sons Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Mannix Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 1965
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court (admiralty) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Stowage of Cargo, Charterparty Obligations, Carrier Liability, Perils of the Sea, Bailment Vs Carriage
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Transportation Law Contract Law Stowage of Cargo Charterparty Obligations Carrier Liability Perils of the Sea +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. M. Paterson and Sons Limited

Defendant/appellant

Mannix Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Exchequer Court (admiralty) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shipowner/master or charterer/shipper bore primary duty to stow cargo
  2. 2 Whether participation by shipper's employees in stowage and their actings estopped shipper from recovery
  3. 3 Whether charterparty terms or conduct implied shift of stowage responsibility to charterer

Ratio Decidendi

In a voyage charter absent an express term shifting stowage responsibility, the owner/master retains the legal duty to receive and stow cargo; approval or inspection by ship's officers does not infer transfer of that duty; where weather was foreseeable, loss by failure of lashings due to negligent stowage is the owner's liability, not a peril of the sea excuse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appellant condemned to pay respondent $60,925