默示赔偿责任2:租家应雇佣称职的装卸工人

来源:Skuld P&I Club @ 23 JUNE 2021


装卸工人在装卸作业中造成货损或船壳损害颇为常见。即使租约中约定相关责任由船东承担,承租人可能也无法一劳永逸。若承租人负责任命装卸工人及支付相关费用,承租人便承担了雇佣称职装卸工人的默示义务。一旦装卸工人被认为是不称职的,船东有机会基于默示赔偿责任向租家主张损害赔偿。

在未经修订的1999年食糖租船合同中包含的装卸工人F.I.O.S.T条款[1]下,卸货作业期间货物泄露导致的短量索赔由船东负责,或者根据NYPE 46经修订的26 [2]条款,船舶在引水员的指示下离泊期间撞击了码头,引航员的行为由船东负责。租家是否无需担心?

事实上一点也不。如果船东可以证明装卸工人或引航员不是简单的疏忽,而是客观上不能胜任,租家可能就有麻烦了。

在 Eurasian Dream案[3]中,人们发现不能胜任(与疏忽相区别)可能源于自身能力不够、缺乏足够的培训、知识的匮乏、不愿适当地完成工作,或者是因为残疾和无能力完成。在Clipper Sao Luis案中[4],大卫·斯蒂尔法官认为不是因为缺乏证书或培训造成了不胜任,而是知识的匮乏才导致了能力低[5]。在Makedonia [6]一案中,法官认为如果一个人有“一段完全无效率的工作经历”,这是确定该人不能胜任的一个重要因素。

“那和我们有什么关系?”租家有这样的疑问是合理的。丹宁勋爵和梅高尔·卢杰[7]以及大卫·斯蒂尔[8]等人给出了答案,他们认为租家在指示装卸工人和向他们支付报酬的同时,也负有雇用称职装卸工人(引航员同理[9])的默示义务。换句话说,如果装卸工或引航员被证明是不称职的,并且船东因为他们的不称职而承担了责任,租家就违反了默示义务,应当赔偿船东的损失。

对船东来说,重要的是(通过当地P&I通代、检验员或当地当局进行调查)证明普遍的不称职。例如,在过去卸货操作的记录中,装卸工人缺乏适当的技能和谨慎,或在引航员参与的事件清单中表明引航员不愿从以前的错误中吸取教训,这些记录将是船东尽力能找到的宝贵证据。

即使在租船合同的条款对船东不太有利的情况下,装卸工人和引航员不称职的证据(并不是简单的疏忽)也可以证明租家违反了提供合格装卸工和引航员的义务,从而为船东成功的索赔铺平道路。

故事的寓意
 
当损失可归因于租家雇佣人员的不称职时,即使合同中已明确规定,租家不应感到高枕无忧,船东也应仔细考虑他们还有向租家追偿的机会。即使合同另有规定,租家最终也很可能要对其代理人的不称职所造成的损失负责,这是在选择或任命此类代理人时必须牢记的。

“承租人或托运人/收货人雇佣的装卸、积载、平舱和卸货的装卸工,费用由他们承担,并由船长控制。装卸工应被视为船东的雇员,承租人/托运人/收货人不对所雇用装卸工的任何性质的疏忽、过失或判断错误负责。”

“船东保持对船舶航行[...]引航员和拖船的行为负责,引航员和/或拖船罢工和所有其他事项除外,与自营航行时相同。

西诺[1972] 1劳氏船级社201号。事实上,丹宁先生和梅高LJ发现承租人提供合格装卸工的责任是绝对的。



Say that there is a shortage claim caused by cargo spillage during the discharge operation under an unamended Sugar Charter party 1999 containing the standard STEVEDORES F.I.O.S.T Clause [1] or that the vessel hits the quayside during her unberthing manoeuvre whilst under pilot's instructions under a NYPE 46 with an amended Clause 26 [2] to bring the acts of pilots within the owners' responsibility, how carefree should the charterers feel?


Well ... not at all. In fact, they would be in a world of trouble if the owners would establish that the stevedores or the pilot were not simply negligent, but in fact, incompetent.


In The Eurasian Dream [3], it was found that incompetence (to be distinguished from negligence) can derive from an inherent lack of ability, a lack of adequate training, a lack of knowledge, a disinclination to do the job properly or from disability or incapacity. In The Clipper Sao Luis [4] Justice David Steel found that it is not the lack of certification or training by themselves that constitute incompetence but a "disabling lack of knowledge" [5]. In The Makedonia [6], the Judge considered it to be an important factor in establishing that a person was incompetent if that person had "a shocking history of sheer inefficiency".


"And what does that have to do with us?" the charterers might reasonably ask. The answer has been given by – among others – Lord Denning MR and Megaw LJ [7] as well as David Steel [8] who were of the view that the charterers are under an implied obligation to employ competent stevedores (and by the same token pilots [9]), when they appoint and pay them. In other words, if the stevedores or pilots are proven to be incompetent and the owners are exposed to liabilities because of such incompetence, the charterers are in breach of their implied obligation and should thus indemnify the owners for their losses.


What is important for the owners to establish (by way of investigations through the local P&I correspondents and surveyors or via the local authorities) is that a general display of incompetence is manifested at a systemic level. For example, records of past discharge operations during which the stevedores showed a lack of proper skill and care or a list of incidents in which the pilot has been involved in and demonstrate a disinclination from the pilot's end to learn from previous mistakes, they would be valuable evidence in such an endeavour.


Proof of incompetence (but not simple negligence) will thus trigger a breach of the charterers' obligation to provide competent stevedores and pilots and thus pave the way for a successful indemnity claim by the owners even in instances where the wording of the charter party is prima facie not very helpful.


MORAL OF THE STORY


Neither the charterers should feel sufficiently protected nor should the owners be remiss to consider their chances of recovery when a loss is attributable to the sheer incompetence of a person employed by the charterers, even in those instances where the contract is explicit in its wording. The charterers may well be ultimately held liable for the loss caused by the incompetence of one of their agents, even when the contract provides otherwise and this is something to be born in mind during the selection or appointment of such agents.


[1] "Stevedores for loading, stowing, trimming and discharging to be employed by charterers or shippers/receivers at their expense and under master's control. Stevedores shall be considered as owners servants, and the charterers/shippers/receivers are not to be responsible for any negligence of whatsoever nature, default or error in judgment of the stevedores employed."

[2] "The owners to remain responsible for the navigation of the vessel [...] acts of pilots and tugboats except strikes of pilots and/or tugboats and all other matters, same as when trading for their own account."

[3] [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. at 736

[4] [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 645

[5] Par. 28, page 650

[6] [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 316 at 336

[7] The Sinoe [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 201 (CA). In fact Denning MR and Megaw LJ found the Charterers' duty to provide competent stevedores to be an absolute one.

[8] The Clipper Sao Luis [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 645

[9] Time Charters (7th ed) at par. 12.18