## Facts

- Oceanic Steam Navigation Company (Limited), claimant of the steamship *Germanic*, faced two admiralty libels filed by cargo owners and cargo underwriters seeking recovery for seawater damage to cargo.
- The *Germanic* arrived at its New York pier around noon on Saturday, February 11, 1899, from Liverpool, heavily coated with ice (found below to weigh at least 213 tons), with additional snow accumulating after arrival.
- The vessel was about 36 hours late and sought to sail on its regular Wednesday schedule; to speed turnaround, it began discharging cargo from all five hatches at once.
- At the same time, the ship took coal from barges on both sides and was breasted off from the dock roughly 25–30 feet on the port side to facilitate coaling.
- By about 4:00 p.m. Monday, February 13, the ship had discharged roughly 1,370 of 1,650 tons of cargo and carried a starboard list of about 8 degrees.
- The ship suddenly rolled from starboard to port, settling into a port list of 9 degrees or more; during that roll, the open cover of an aft coal port near the waterline was knocked off, leaving the bottom of the opening about a foot above the water.
- The master then intervened with corrective directions (including stopping coaling on the port side while continuing on starboard, halting removal of cargo from the lower hold, and shifting bagged sugar to starboard), but the vessel continued to experience shifting lists as discharge and coal intake proceeded.
- After further cargo movement and coal distribution during the evening, the starboard list steadily increased; shortly after 9:00 p.m., the ship rolled again to port, carrying the open coal port below the waterline.
- Water entered through the coal port; the pumps could not control it, and the ship sank at the pier before relief could be obtained, damaging cargo by seawater.

## Issues

1. Whether the water damage was caused by a “peril of the sea” (or other excepted cause) rather than by negligent conduct during discharge, coaling, and related shipboard handling at the pier.
2. Whether the loss fell within the Harter Act’s exemption for “faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel,” or instead stemmed from negligent cargo handling and the creation of an unsafe condition for which the carrier remained responsible.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (Holmes, J.) affirmed the decree for the cargo owners and underwriters.
- The Court accepted the concurrent findings of the courts below that the casualty resulted from negligent methods of discharging cargo and taking in coal, and from failure to take proper precautions as the lists developed.
- The Court rejected the contention that the sinking and resulting cargo damage should be treated as an unavoidable “peril of the sea.”
- On the facts found, the shipowner was not relieved from liability under the Harter Act’s “navigation or management” exemption.

## Legal Principles

- When the district court and court of appeals concur on the essential cause of a maritime casualty, the Supreme Court generally accepts those findings unless clearly wrong.
- A carrier cannot avoid cargo liability by relabeling negligent loading/discharge and related berth operations as protected “management of the vessel” when the substance of the fault is unsafe handling that directly exposes cargo to damage.
- If the vessel is made unsafe in the course of cargo discharge and coaling—such as by instability from hurried, unbalanced operations and leaving an opening near the waterline exposed—resulting flooding and cargo damage are attributable to negligent operational conduct rather than an excepted sea peril.
- The Harter Act’s protections do not extend to negligent methods of cargo handling and shipboard operations at the berth that create the conditions leading to loss.

## Conclusion

*Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Aitken (The Germanic)* held the carrier liable for seawater damage to cargo after the *Germanic* sank at its New York pier, because the courts properly found the loss resulted from negligent discharge and coaling practices (and inadequate precautions as the ship’s list worsened), not from a sea peril or from errors shielded by the Harter Act’s “navigation or management of the vessel” exemption.


Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Aitken (The Germanic), 196 U.S. 589 (1905)