大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第五章:拖航]
郭国汀律师专栏
·郭国汀评论第六十八集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十九集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十集:中共极权专制暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十一集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十二集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十三集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十四集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十五集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天大罪
·郭国汀评论第七十六集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十七集:共产党极权暴政的缩命
·郭国汀评论第七十八集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(中)
·郭国汀评论第七十九集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(下)
·郭国汀评论第八十集:中共极权暴政摧残教育的深重罪孽
·共产党极权专制暴政的滥杀罪孽
·中共极权暴政的野蛮残暴杀人罪孽
·中共人为制造谋杀性大饥荒虐杀农民5000万
·中国反对派不能合作的根源何在?
·共产主义是好的,只是被共产党搞糟了?
·中共极权暴政下根本不可能存在法治
·今日中共还是共产党吗?
·推翻中共专制暴政是替天行道 郭国汀
·中共政权是吸血鬼暴政
·江泽民和胡锦涛均极可能是货真价实的特大汉奸卖国贼!
·中共专制暴政与生态环境
·中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(上)
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(中)
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(下)
·郭国汀评论:胡锦涛不是在执政而是在犯罪
·彻底推翻极权专制流氓暴政!永志不忘六四屠城滔天罪孽!
·朱镕基犯有贪污盗窃罪吗?
·朱镕基有关劳动保险金的罪责是非之我见
·中共党员是罪犯!——评贺卫方教授的中共分成两派说
·中共党员是罪犯 无耻无行文人是重罪犯!
·不是中国政府而是中共暴政丧尽天良!不但温家宝而且胡锦涛皆乃政治精神重症患者!
·中国共产党早已病入膏肓无可救药!
·杜绝三鹿毒奶粉事件的三项原则
·郭国汀律师系统批判中共极权专制暴政论文目录
·郭国汀中共政权已经彻底流氓化
·中共是极端残暴下流无耻的流氓暴政 郭国汀
·怀念当代中国最高贵的人——杨天水/张林
·关于中共政权合法性及专制暴政与人种信仰关系的论战 郭国汀
·南郭/推翻颠覆中共流氓暴政有功无罪!
·面对中共流氓暴政全体中国人应当做什么?
·面对十八层地狱,我的真情告白
·我的退党(社)、团、队声明
·从中共控制媒体看中共政权的脆弱
·关于加国公民起诉江泽民罗干李清王茂林案的宣誓证词(英文)
·中共极力扶持缅甸军事专制政府及苏丹专制暴政
·请胡锦涛立即停止疯狂攻击郭国汀律师的电脑
·中共专制暴政恶贯满盈
·申曦(曾节明):剥胡锦涛的画皮
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛其人其事
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛虚伪狡诈邪恶凶残阴险的真面目
·申曦(曾节明):胡锦涛的伪善与病态人格
·申曦(曾节明):盖棺认定胡氏中共暴政
·申曦(曾节明):江泽民的心病
·申曦(曾节明):邓小平罪孽深重
***(35)中国政治体制批判
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·郭国汀律师批判极权专制政治司法教育体制主张自由人权宪政民主文章目录
·郭国汀律师政论时评目录
·中国反抗专制暴政的先驱者与英雄
·郭国汀与横河谈中共暴政阉割国人灵魂使警察成为恶魔
·孙文广、程晓农、郭国汀谈共产党的公务员非法歧视政策
·划时代的审判,创造历史的壮举
·恶法不除,国无宁日
·致加拿大国会的公开函
·中共已是末日疯狂/郭国汀
·三权分立的哲学基础
·虚伪是极权专制的必然付产品-------南郭与中律网友们的对话
·汝竟敢骂共党骂毛泽东!
***(36)中共司法体制批判
·从人权律师的遭遇析中国人权的实际情况
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·中共专制暴政下为什么冤假错案堆积如山?
·中共勞教制度是人類歷史上最野蠻的制度
·马亚莲案与废除劳教制度
·郭國汀談中共勞教制度下的性酷刑
·郭國汀談萬名公民提出廢除勞教制度建立叻ㄐ袨槌C治法
·郭国汀:违宪、违法
·郭国汀律师谈中国司法现状
·郭国汀称司法黑社会化免死承诺难保赖昌星的命
·为赖昌星遗返案我的宣誓证词
·中华全国律师协会的实质----被阉割与自宫
·郭国汀 司法公正的前提条件
***中共专制暴政是国人一切深重苦难的总根源
·人权律师郭国汀称中共制造法拉盛事件旨在嫁祸抹黑法轮功以转移公众视线
·郭国汀 纽约时报报导死难学生亲属周月悼念地震中无辜牺牲的亲人
·美国顶级地震专家称四川地震有可能未能被预测到
·谁之罪?
·中共专制暴政的罪孽学校跨塌致数千名学生死灭最新统计
·一篇被全球英文博客转载最多的四川地震实况报导
·郭国汀百无一用是中国律师
·我愿意收养一个为救人而牺牲的教师或母亲的遗孤
·中国人持继追问为何众多学校震成碎片废墟? 被全球英文网站转载最多的地震专文
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
   (2)、举证责任
   举证责任在被拖方,至少在部分上是由于美国拖航诉讼产生于侵权而非违约(are ex delicto and not ex contractu)。因此,被拖方必须证明损害原因是拖轮的过失,以便于获得损害赔偿52。在这方面,值得指出的是,宾西法尼亚规则适用于拖轮发生碰撞的场合。如果拖轮违反碰撞或者其他法定规则53,这种原因推定可能会使损害原因易于证明,但依吾之见,此种推定与过失比例规则是不相容的54。
   事情不言自明(Res ipsa loquitur) (“the thing speaks for itself”) 是条根据法律或法理由已知事实得出过失推定的证明规则。该推定几乎总是可以辩驳的。因此卸货后发现货物沾有盐渍,可推定承运人掌管时货物曾被海水浸泡。或者如果被拖轮仅由拖轮控制时遭受损害(在此场合,被拖轮是 “非自航船”,或拖轮是“支配意见方” 55),即可推定拖轮存有过失。质言之,事情不言自明术语的运用既不真正有利也不真正有害--被拖船必须证明过失,可运用通常的证明规则与推定,包括在适当的情形时运用事情不言自明。许多美国判决当提及被拖船应尽的举证责任,仍然援引事情不言自明的证明规则56。
   52、Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195 at p.202, 1932 AMC 468 at p.472 (1932). Any recovery from the tug must be ex delicto, not ex contractu, because a tug is neither an insuer nor a bailee. See also Parks &Cattell, 3 Ed., 1994 at p.18 et seq. But note that in the case of a barge fleeting operation, the usual standard of reasonable care by the bailee will apply. See Paarks & Cattell, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 2 at p.250. See also United Barge Co. v.Notre Dame Fleeting & Towage Service Inc., 568 F.2d. 599 at pp.601-602, 1978 AMC 1163 at p.1165(8 Cir. 1978); Dow Chemical Co. v.Barge UM-23B, 424 F.2d 307 at p.311, 1970 AMC 1622 at p.1628 (5 Cir. 1970) and John I. Hay Co. v. The Allen B. Wood, 121 F. Supp. 704 at p.708, 1954 AMC 1389 at pp.1393-1394 (E.D.La. 1954), aff’d sub nom. Martin Oil Service Inc. v. John I.Hay Co., 219 F.2d 237, 1955 AMC 552 (5 Cir. 1955); Parks & Cattell, 3 Ed., 1994 at p.19 et seq.
   53、Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 2 at pp.295-298. See also Staples v.H.& A. Trading Inc., 1994 AMC 1729 (D.P.R. 1993), where the applicability of the Pennsylvania Rule in towage collisions generally was reaffirmed, although the Rule was found inapplicable in the case at bar. See also Ira S. Bushey v. Tug Bruce A.McAllister, 1995 AMC 806 at pp.816-817 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
   54、W. Tetley, “The Pennsylvania Rule-An Error?”, (1982) 13 JMLC 127-147. See chap. 6, infra
   55、In the United States, there is a weak presumption that the tug, which provides the motive power, is the “dominantmind”, in towage, but this presumption may be rebutted by proof of negligence on the part of the tow: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.Progress Marine Inc., 1980 AMC 1637 at p.1639 (E.D.La. 1979); Alter Co. v.M/V Miss Sue, 536 F.Supp.313 at p.316, 1983 AMC 302 (summ.) (E.D.La. 1982); Canarctic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 670 F.2d 61 at p.64 (6 Cir. 1982). The tug is relieved of liability where the tow is the “dominant mind”, provided the tug has followed the orders of the tow without negligence: Dow Chemical Co. v. Tug Thomas Allen, 349 F.Supp.1354 at p.1363, 1974 AMC 781 at p.792 (E.D.La. 1972). See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 2 at p.258.
   56、Consolidated Drain and Barges Co. v. Huffman Towing Co., 801 F.2d 1072 at p.1074 (8 Cir. 1986). Although the plaintiff has the burden of proving its claim of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the to infer negligence where: 1) the injured party was without fault; 2) the instrumentality causing the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant; 3) the mishap is of a type that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence.”See also United States v. Nassau Marine Corp., 778 F.2d 1111 at pp.1115-1116, 1985 AMC 474 at p.482 (5 Cir. 1985); Lone Star Industries v. Mays Towing Co., 927 f.2d 1453 at pp.1455-1458, 1991 AMC 1540 at pp.1543-1544 (8 Cir. 1991): 1. Barge (tow) sank after redelivery during unloading, due to a crack in its stern log; 2. Barge was seaworthy when placed in custody of the tug; 3. So damage which cased the crack probably resulted from negligence of the tug during the voyage. See Robinson, supra, note 48 at p.860 for factual example of the application of this technique. See also Mid-America Transportation Co. v. National Marine Service, 497 F.2d 776 at pp.779-780, 1974 AMC 1943 at pp.1948-1949, on remand 526 F.2d 629 at p.630, 1976 AMC 389 at p.390 (8 Cir. 1975), cert.denied 425 U.S. 937, 1976 AMC 1500 (1976) and Agri-Trans Corp. v.Peavey Co., 742 F.2d 1137 at p.1139 (8 Cir. 1984): Defendant has onus of rebutting the inference of negligence where res ipsa loquitur applies.
   (3)、注意标准
   在美国,拖轮的“合理注意”标准与英国相同。美国联邦最高法院在Stevens案中阐述如下57:“拖轮应当象受雇履行类似服务的谨慎的领航员/航海者一样,恪尽此此种合理的注意与海上技巧。”此种义务还包括细心考虑所有相关的情形,包括诸如水深、障碍物位置、潮流状态、桥梁净空此类因素,以及查明被拖物的特征是否需要特别照管、通行的主要天气条件,以及被拖物在相关时间、地点而对预期的天气的适应性58。
   美国法下,承拖方有责任检查被拖方由外部职业检验人提供的正式航程/拖航检验59;同时,其船长在被拖船交付时还要走动一圈检查船况60。这些义务是承拖方合理注意标准的组成部分,有别于且不取代被拖方的绝对与不可转移的提供适航的被拖轮的责任 61。
   57、285 U.S. 195 at p.202, 1932 AMC 468 at p.472 (1932). See also The Syracuse, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 167 at p.171 (1870); The Webb, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 406 at p.414 (1871); Curtis Bay Towing Co. of Virginia v.Southern Lighterage Corp., 200 F.2d 33 at p.35, 1952 AMC 2034 at p.2036 (4 Cir. 1952); Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. v. Marcona Conveyor Corp., 716 F.2d 1077 at p.1081 (5 Cir. 1983); King Fisher Marine Service Inc.v.Marvice Inc.v.NP Sunbonnet,724F.2d 1181 at p.1184,1984AMC 1796 at p.1772(5 Cir.1984); McDermott Inc. v.Amclyde, 1997 AMC 697 at p.702 (E.D.La. 1996); In re Christiansen Marine, 1996 AMC 2353 at p.2363 (E.D.Va. 1996); Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v.Ober, 107 F.3d 925 at p.931, 1997 AMC 1995 (summ.) (1 Cir. 1997). See also J.B.Kemp, “Legal Duties between Tug and Tow: The United States View”, in The Law of Tug and Tow, an International Comparison, being an unpublished collection of papers presented at a seminar held by the Trots and Insurance Practice Section of the American Bar Association , Chicago, August 6, 1990, at pp.12-13; Maraist, 4 Ed., 2001at p.124.
   58、In re Tug Beverly Inc., 1994 AMC 2437 at p.2441 (E.D.Pa. 1994); Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. Ober, 107 F.3d 925 at p.930, 1997 AMC 2995 (summ.) (1 Cir. 1997).
   59、Kemp, supra, note 57 at pp.1-3.
   60、Kemp, ibid. at pp.3-4; Steuart Transportation Limitation Proceedings, 435 F. Supp. 798 at p.804, 1978 AMC 1906 at p.1913 (E.D.Va. 1977), aff’d 596 F.2d 609, 1979 AMC 1187 (4 Cir. 1979); Aiple Towing Co. Inc. v. M/V Lynne E.Quinn, 543 F.Supp.409 at p.411, 1982 AMC 1869 at p.1872 (E.D.La. 1982); Complaint of J.E.Brenneman Co., 782 F. Supp. 1021 atp.1026 (E.D.Pa. 1992). No detailed inspection is required, however, where the tow is apparently seaworthy: Nat G. Harrison Overseas Crop. V. American Tug Titan, 516 F.2d 89 at p.94, 1975 AMC 2257 at p.2262 (5 Cir. 1975); Dow Chemical v. M/V GulfSeas, 428 F. Supp. 667 at p.673 (W.D.La.1977); Ingram Industries Inc. v. Eagle Towing Inc., 1986 AMC 1414 at p.1418 (S.D.Ala 1985);Cargill v. C & P Towing Co. Inc. (Tug Randy D.), 1992 AMC 392 at p.395 (4 Cir. 1985); In re Christiansen Marine, 1996 AMC 2353 at p. 2360 (E.D.Va. 1996). But a “walk around”, inspection may be insufficient where special circumstances warrant greater diligence by the tug : Consolidated Gain and Barge Co. v. Flowers Transportation Inc., 538 F. Supp. 65 at p.71 (E.D.Mo. 1982); McAllister, Lim. Procs., 2000 AMC 2164 at p.2176 (E.D.Va. 2000): (“The less the tug owner can rely upon the [towed] vessel being seaworthy, the higher the duty of inspection on his part.”). See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001,vol.2 at p.251,note 12.
   61、Curtis Bay Towing Co. v. Southern Lighterage Co., 200 F.2d 33 at p.34, 1952 AMC 2034 at p.2036 (4 Cir. 1952); M/V Sands Point-Yacht Abogado (Tebbs v. Baker Whiteley Towing Co.), 407 F.2d 1055 at p.1057, 1969 AMC 275 at p.277 (4 Cir. 1969); Nat G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v.American Tug Titan, 516 F.2d 89 at p.94, 1975 AMC 2257 at p.2262 (5 Cirt. 1975), modified on other grounds, 520 F.2d 1104, 1975 AMC 2271 (5 Cir. 1975); W.G.Bush & Co. v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, 474 F. Supp.537 at p.544 (M.D.Tenn. 1977); Cargill v. C & P Towing Co. Inc. (Tug Randy D.), 1991 AMC 101 at p.107 (E.D.Va. 1990), aff’d 1992 AMC 392 at p.395 (4 Cir. 1991); In re Tug Beverly Inc., 1994 AMC 2437 at p.2439 (E.D.Pa. 1994); In re Christiansen Marine, 1996 AMC 2353 at p.2364 (E.D.Va. 1996). See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001,vol.2 at p.256; Kemp, ibid. at p.11-12.

[上一页][目前是第4页][下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场

合同的一方当事人。其论点乃是此种合法持有人在船东向其作出误述之后,便已订立合同,据此,他可以依赖《误述条例》第2条1款。我们认为这种论点难以成立。《海上货物运输法》在船东与提单持有人之间,并未创设一种新的合同,而是托运人与船东之间原始协议的一种法定转让。这并非《误述条例》调整的那种行为。

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场