## Facts

- A British bark, *J. W. Parker*, owned by Troop and others, was chartered by Ralli and others to carry a full cargo from Calcutta to New York, including 7,592 bales of jute for delivery at Boston.
- While the vessel was moored in port at Calcutta, a fire broke out in the hold, allegedly from spontaneous combustion in the jute, placing ship and cargo in danger of total loss.
- Crew and nearby assistance initially attempted to smother and extinguish the fire by introducing water and sealing openings; municipal fire engines later injected water and chemicals into the hold.
- Municipal port authorities then assumed control, pumped steam and water into the hold, moved the vessel, and put her aground as part of firefighting efforts.
- The master wished to remove more cargo but was prevented by the authorities due to perceived fire-spread risks; he did not order the later scuttling.
- The fire was extinguished only after the port authorities scuttled the ship, leaving her a wreck not worth repairing.
- A small portion of the jute (about 551–552 bales) was saved and forwarded to Boston; the remainder was damaged, condemned, and sold at Calcutta.
- The shipowners treated the ship’s loss and related expenses as general average, sought to offset cargo sale proceeds through a general average adjustment, and tendered a stated balance to cargo interests.
- The cargo interests sued in admiralty seeking the full value of the undelivered jute rather than an adjustment based on general average contribution for the ship’s loss.

## Issues

1. Whether a vessel’s destruction caused by scuttling ordered and executed by municipal port authorities, without direction from the master, constitutes a general average loss chargeable to cargo interests.
2. Whether compulsory measures imposed by public authorities, even if taken to protect ship and cargo from a common peril, satisfy the “voluntary sacrifice” element of general average.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment allowing general average contribution for the ship’s loss and remanded.
- The Court held that scuttling by municipal authorities, without the direction of the master or other commanding officer, is not a general average loss.
- The Court concluded that the ship’s loss from scuttling could not be charged against cargo by general average contribution, even if the authorities’ measures were the best available to protect cargo from greater loss.

## Legal Principles

- General average requires: (1) a common imminent peril to ship and cargo; (2) a voluntary sacrifice of property made to avert that peril; and (3) successful attainment of safety for the remaining interests by that sacrifice.
- The “voluntary sacrifice” must be an intentional act of those directing the maritime venture (typically the master or commanding officer) for the common safety.
- Losses caused by compulsory acts of external force or public authority are not general average sacrifices, even if they incidentally benefit other interests.
- A master’s acquiescence or failure to object to public authorities’ actions does not convert an authority-directed destruction into a master-directed, voluntary general average act.

## Conclusion

Because the vessel was scuttled under the control of municipal port authorities rather than by a voluntary decision of the master for the common maritime venture, the resulting loss of the ship was not a general average loss and could not be assessed against cargo interests through contribution.


Ralli v. Troop, 157 U.S. 386 (1895)