## Facts

- A steamship owned by a navigation company carried refrigerated cargo and was fitted with refrigeration machinery for transporting chilled meat.
- A partnership shipped dressed beef from Philadelphia to Liverpool under a bill of lading acknowledging receipt in apparent good order and promising delivery in like condition.
- The bill of lading included a broad clause placing the goods “absolutely at the risk of the owners” and disclaiming carrier liability for loss or damage “however arising,” including breakdowns or defects in refrigeration or machinery even if the defect existed before the voyage.
- During the voyage, the refrigeration system failed to maintain the required temperature.
- On arrival, the beef was mouldy and slimy, causing substantial loss to the shipper.
- The shipper alleged the refrigeration apparatus was out of repair when the vessel sailed and was not repaired during the voyage; the carrier asserted the apparatus was in perfect order at departure after inspection and that necessary repairs were made during the voyage.
- The district court dismissed the in rem libel and exonerated the vessel and owner; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a bill-of-lading clause broadly disclaiming liability for refrigeration breakdowns and pre-existing defects is enforceable under federal limits on carrier exculpation.
2. Whether a carrier remains subject to a non-waivable duty to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel, including functional refrigeration equipment, at the commencement of the voyage.
3. Which party bears the burden to prove due diligence and seaworthiness when the carrier seeks the benefit of contractual or statutory limitations on liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the decrees for the vessel and owner and remanded.
- The Court held that the bill-of-lading clause was ineffective insofar as it attempted to relieve the carrier from the statutory duty to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy at the start of the voyage.
- The Court treated the refrigeration apparatus as part of seaworthiness for a vessel undertaking refrigerated carriage.
- The Court placed on the carrier the burden to prove due diligence to make the vessel and its refrigeration machinery reasonably fit before sailing; broad exculpatory language did not shift that burden.

## Legal Principles

- Federal law governing sea carriage prevents a carrier from contracting out of the duty to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel at the commencement of the voyage.
- A clause stating cargo is carried solely at the owner’s risk, including risks from machinery breakdowns and pre-existing defects, is unenforceable to the extent it negates the carrier’s statutory seaworthiness/due-diligence obligation.
- For refrigerated carriage, seaworthiness includes the proper condition and functioning of the refrigerating apparatus necessary to carry the cargo as contemplated.
- When invoking contractual or statutory limits on liability, the carrier must affirmatively prove due diligence to furnish a seaworthy ship and proper equipment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a sea carrier cannot, by sweeping “owner’s risk” bill-of-lading language, avoid the statutory duty to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel, including operable refrigeration; because the carrier must prove that due diligence, the decrees exonerating the ship were reversed and the case remanded.


Martin, Fuller & Co. v. The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1 (1903)