Crawford & Law v. The Allan Steamship Co., Ltd [1911] ScotLR 648 (17 March 1911)

Crawford & Law v. The Allan Steamship Co., Ltd [1911] ScotLR 648 (17 March 1911)

The pursuers failed to prove that the defenders received the flour in substantially perfect order and failed to deliver it in like order, or that the defenders were responsible for the damage caused by loading in rain. The onus was on the pursuers to establish these facts, and they did not discharge it. The shipowner under a through bill of lading is not bound to refuse to load goods in wet weather tendered by the inland carrier. The contract did not make the shipowner an insurer against all damage, and the evidence did not show a breach of duty or contract by the defenders.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 648
Parties
Pursuers: Crawford & Law; Defenders: The Allan Steamship Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 March 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Bill of Lading, Carrier Liability, Onus of Proof, Through Bill of Lading, Damage to Cargo, Loading in Rain, Notification of Damage
Shipping Law Contract Law Carriage of Goods Bill of Lading Carrier Liability Onus of Proof Through Bill of Lading Damage to Cargo +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crawford & Law

Pursuers

The Allan Steamship Company, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shipowner is liable for damage (caking) to flour under a through bill of lading when loading occurred in rain.
  2. 2 Whether the onus is on the pursuers to prove the goods were received in good order and not delivered in like order, or on the defenders to prove the damage did not occur in their custody.
  3. 3 Whether the shipowner under a through bill of lading is bound to refuse to load goods in wet weather tendered by the inland carrier.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to prove that the defenders received the flour in substantially perfect order and failed to deliver it in like order, or that the defenders were responsible for the damage caused by loading in rain. The onus was on the pursuers to establish these facts, and they did not discharge it. The shipowner under a through bill of lading is not bound to refuse to load goods in wet weather tendered by the inland carrier. The contract did not make the shipowner an insurer against all damage, and the evidence did not show a breach of duty or contract by the defenders.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary is recalled.
  • The defenders are assoilzied from the conclusions of the action.