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
·东德和平革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之五
·波兰自我限制的革命:共产党极权暴政崩溃原因分析之六
·罗马尼亚35天革命成功真相
·社会转媒(国际互联网)对阿拉伯之春革命的巨大作用
·郭国汀:苏共政权垮台的根本原因
·阿拉伯之春埃及部分成功的革命
·阿拉伯之春:突尼斯成功的革命
·觉醒的人民粉碎专制体制:阿拉伯革命
·民主革命决非恐怖主义
·东欧各国追究共产党罪犯的罪责概况
·共产党专制暴政皆依赖秘密政治警察实行极权恐怖统治
·共产党极权暴政利用强制劳改劳教集中营野蛮残暴迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政实质上皆与人民为敌
·共产党极权专政暴政的大清洗
·共产党极权专制暴政皆利用强制劳改集中营野蛮迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政皆践踏法律司法暗无天日
·共产党极权专制暴政皆疯狂迫害宗教信仰者
***(26)《共产主义的历史》郭国汀编译
·序《共产主义的历史》
·共产主义的理论与实践批判
·列宁主义批判
·斯大林主义批判
·西方国家的共产主义
·第三世界的共产主义
·共产主义谬误的根源及其注定失败的原因
·共产党政权跨台的理论与实践根源
·马克思确认共产主义是“可怕的妖精”和“鬼魂”及“幽灵”
·共产主义注定败亡的十四项理由
·人类不平等的起源究竟是什么?
·郭国汀马克思主义批判
·宗教是毒药!宗教是引人堕落的意识世界吗?!
·马克思列宁毛泽东为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党政权为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源
·中共政权极度腐败的宗教根源
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源—与网友的讨论
***(27)《列宁不为人知的故事》郭国汀编译
·列宁不为人知的故事(1)
· 列宁不为人知的故事(2)
·列宁不为人知的故事(3)
·列宁不为人知的故事(4)
·列宁不为人知的故事(5)
·列宁不为人知的故事(6)
·列宁不为人知的故事(7)
·列宁不为人知的故事(8)
·列宁不为人知的故事(9)
·列宁不为人知的故事(10)
·列宁不为人知的故事(11)
·列宁不为人知的故事(12)
·列宁不为人知的故事(13)
·列宁不为人知的故事(14)
·列宁不为人知的故事(15)
·列宁不为人知的故事(16)
·列宁是天真无知与考茨基的远见卓识
·马克思私生子考评
***(28)《苏俄革命》郭国汀编译
· 列宁共产主义实践的恶果
·极权主义术语的由来
·苏俄十月革命真相
· 列宁首创一党专制体制
· 卖国求权的布列斯特和约
·革命的真实含义
·支撐沙皇的五大政治力量--俄國革命前夕的历史格局
·1917年俄国二月革命
·权欲知识分子与苏俄革命
***(29)《基督教与人类文明》郭国汀编译
·《基督教与文明》
·基督教是自由资本主义之母
·基督教与共产党暴政
·天主教皇与犹太人
·纳粹和法西斯极权主义与基督教及罗马教皇
·极权主义是基督教文化的产物吗?
·纳粹决非极左而是极右也非国家社会主义而是国家资本主义
·恐怖主义与反犹太主义
·纳粹极权兴亡简史
·进化论与基督教信仰
·西班牙宗教法庭
·中国基督教发展简史
·基督教与现代语言
·基督教与理性
·基督教的慈善爱与大学文化教育
·罗马帝国为何迫害基督教?
·基督教与诗歌文学音乐绘画建筑艺术文化美学
·基督教与科学和利玛窦
·基督教与法学
·基督教与哲学
·基督教与自然科学和人文教育体制
·基督教的人人平等和反奴隶制
***(30)《近现当代真实的中国历史》郭国汀译著
·为抗日救亡战争血洒长空的美国空军飞虎队
·蒋介石打输国共内战的七大原因
·西安事变真相
·宛南事变真相:毛想迫斯大林支持他与蒋介石争权同时借刀杀项英
·史迪威与蒋介石的命运
[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