## Facts

- Farr & Bailey Manufacturing Co. shipped bales of burlap from Philadelphia to London on the steamship *Indiana*, operated by International Navigation Co.
- The bill of lading incorporated the Harter Act and purported to exempt the carrier from liability for certain navigation or vessel-management faults.
- The burlap was stowed in a compartment with side ports designed to be made watertight by glass deadlights and interior iron shutters with gaskets.
- Before departure, the side-port coverings were closed but not properly fastened or made tight; the gaskets were not properly set to create a watertight seal.
- Heavy seas caused seawater to enter through the imperfectly secured ports, wetting and damaging the burlap.
- Farr & Bailey brought an admiralty claim for cargo damage; the carrier asserted Harter Act immunity on the theory that the loss resulted from errors in navigation or management after due diligence to make the ship seaworthy.

## Issues

1. Whether improperly secured side-port coverings constituted unseaworthiness existing at the commencement of the voyage, defeating Harter Act immunity.
2. Whether the carrier proved “due diligence” to make the vessel seaworthy so as to obtain statutory exemption for faults in navigation or vessel management.
3. Whether bill-of-lading clauses could relieve the carrier from liability where the loss was attributable to unseaworthiness or lack of due diligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree for Farr & Bailey Manufacturing Co.
- The Court held that the failure to properly fasten and secure the side-port shutters and deadlights created an unseaworthy condition at the start of the voyage.
- Because the carrier did not establish due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy in this respect, it could not invoke the Harter Act exemption for navigational or management faults.
- Contractual liability-limiting clauses were ineffective to the extent they conflicted with the Harter Act’s bar on contracting away responsibility for unseaworthiness or lack of due diligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Harter Act, a carrier is exempt from liability for “faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel” only if it first exercises due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy and properly equipped before and at the beginning of the voyage.
- Seaworthiness includes not only adequate hull and equipment, but also proper pre-voyage preparation and securing of equipment necessary for the voyage.
- Failure to put essential watertight closures into proper working condition before sailing is a seaworthiness defect, not a protected navigational/management error occurring after departure.
- The carrier bears the burden to prove due diligence when relying on Harter Act immunities.
- A bill of lading may not relieve a carrier from liability for unseaworthiness or failure to exercise due diligence; clauses inconsistent with the Harter Act are unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The Court imposed liability for cargo damage because seawater entered through side ports that were not properly secured before sailing, rendering the vessel unseaworthy at the voyage’s commencement and preventing the carrier from obtaining Harter Act immunity for navigation or management errors.


Int'l Navigation Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., 181 U.S. 218 (1901)