ship can encounter the ordinary perils in the voyage, and the answer of this question depends on the situation and the background circumstance where the issue of seaworthiness is under issue. Moores v Louisville Underwriters In the US case of the criteria of seaworthiness was held to be satisfied if the vessel is constructed sufficiently enough as opposed to the best and most perfect The Steel Scientist skillful form of construction. In another case (1936) Hand Circuit J has held that, “A ship must be reasonably fitted for her service, but ordinarily she need not conform to a high standard than that which prevails among duly accredited masters of experience…there is no reason why we should hold the ship owners to refinements of care which go beyond the practical wisdom of the calling.” 3 b iii) The Relationship between “absolute duty and “reasonable fitness” President of India v West Coast Steamship Co. [1963] In the 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 Kilkenny J explained the connection between the two by stating that absolute means nothing more or less Mcfadden v Blue than supplying a ship that can reasonably do the job. Here as per Channel J in Star Line the test for assessing seaworthiness is still objective meaning that the ship will be a seaworthy one if she would be sent to sea by a careful and prudent owner at the commencement of her voyage having regard to all the external factors. Here the learned Wilson (2007, p 10) states very shrewdly that though the duty is absolute but the standard required by the court will be decided in the case at hand, looking into the nature of the voyage, type of the cargo and the perils that are present in the route decided. Therefore there is a very conspicuous connection between the duties that is absolute in one hand and not so absolutely construed on the other hand! 3 c) the Extent of Seaworthiness The important question that comes to into play after the nature of seaworthiness has been defined is that how far an owner of a ship should go to make his ship seaworthy. Obviously the common law has laid down categories where the courts will resort to these categories and
ship can encounter the ordinary perils in the voyage, and the answer of this question depends on the situation and the background circumstance where the issue of seaworthiness is under issue. In the US case of Moores v Louisville Underwriters the criteria of seaworthiness was held to be satisfied if the vessel is constructed sufficiently enough as opposed to the best and most perfect skillful form of construction. In another case The Steel Scientist (1936) Hand Circuit J has held that, “A ship must be reasonably fitted for her service, but ordinarily she need not conform to a high standard than that which prevails among duly accredited masters of experience…there is no reason why we should hold the ship owners to refinements of care which go beyond the practical wisdom of the calling.” 3 b iii) The Relationship between “absolute duty and “reasonable fitness” In the President of India v West Coast Steamship Co. [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 Kilkenny J explained the connection between the two by stating that absolute means nothing more or less than supplying a ship that can reasonably do the job. Here as per Channel J in Mcfadden v Blue Star Line the test for assessing seaworthiness is still objective meaning that the ship will be a seaworthy one if she would be sent to sea by a careful and prudent owner at the commencement of her voyage having regard to all the external factors. Here the learned Wilson (2007, p 10) states very shrewdly that though the duty is absolute but the standard required by the court will be decided in the case at hand, looking into the nature of the voyage, type of the cargo and the perils that are present in the route decided. Therefore there is a very conspicuous connection between the duties that is absolute in one hand and not so absolutely construed on the other hand! 3 c) the Extent of Seaworthiness The important question that comes to into play after the nature of seaworthiness has been defined is that how far an owner of a ship should go to make his ship seaworthy. Obviously the common law has laid down categories where the courts will resort to these categories and