![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Section 276 of the Norwegian Maritime Code (here in after referred to as NMC) exempts the sea carrier from the liability for damages arising due to the navigational errors. However, there are scenarios where a sea carrier is devoid of invoking this exemption. This paper discusses the concept of sea carriers’ exoneration of liability caused due to nautical faults under international maritime conventions, and the position adopted under NMC( § 276).
Acknowledgement
My sincere gratitude goes to Professor Trond Solvang of Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law (University of Oslo) for his constructive comments on the initial draft of this work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Assefa Aregay Sefara LLB (HU), LLM (UiO), LLM (CEU) is a Lecturer of Laws at Ambo University (School of Law).
Notes
1. Eun Sup Lee and Sun Ok Kim. 2005. “Sea Carriers’ Liability for Default,” Journal of Korean Trade, 9 (2), 93.
2. Ibid., 95.
3. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading (Brussels, 25 August 1924).
4. The Hague Rules as Amended by the Brussels Protocol, 1968.
5. United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg, 1978).
6. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, 2009.
7. See section 252 and 253 of the NMC.
8. Section 254 states ‘a provision of a contract of carriage is invalid in so far as it departs from the provision of this chapter’. Section 252 of the code determines its scope of application.
9. Section 254 of NMC.
10. Thor Falkanger, Hans Jacob Bull, and Lasse Bratautaet. 2011. Scandinavian Maritime Law, The Norwegian Perspective 3rd ed. 319.
11. Ibid., 319.
12. Ibid., 270.
13. Eun Sup Lee and Seon Ok Kim, “A Carrier’s Liability for Commercial Default and Default in Navigation or Management of the Vessel,” Transportation Law Journal, 27, 205.
14. Ibid., 220.
15. Ibid.
16. Lord (SS) v. Newsum [1920] 1 KB 846.
17. Arthur Guinness, Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. MV Freshfield (Owners) [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 337.338.
18. Yin Yang, The Abolition of The Nautical Fault Exemption: To Be or Not To Be, 27.
19. Falkanger, Bull, and Bratautaet, Scandinavian Maritime Law, 293.
20. Nicholas J. Healy, David J. Sharpe, and Peter Winship. 2012. Cases and Materials on Admiralty Law, American Casebook Series, 389.
21. Ahmad Hussam Kassem. 2006. The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness: Current Law and Development, 24.
22. Richard Schaffer, Filiberto Agusti, Beverley Earle, International Business Law and Its Environment, 205.
23. Ahmad Hussam Kassem, The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness, 24.
24. The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1 (1903); Edmund Well v. American West African Line, 147 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1945).
25. A. Knauth, The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading, 4th ed. 201.
26. These exemptions are provided under §276 of the code as:
(a) If loss resulted from the navigation or management of the ship on the part of the master crew, pilot or tug or others performing work in the services of the ship.
(b) For damages resulting from fire.
27. Section 276 Paragraph 3.
28. See Section 275 of NMC.
29. HR-2011-1797-A (An unofficial translation by Kallerud, Falkanger, Stabel, Tønder, Tjomsland found at http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5401/h13/presentations/sunna_eng_trond_h12.pdf accessed on 30/04/2014).