Wilkie and Others v. Geddes [1815] UKHL 3_Dow_57
REPORTS OF APPEAL CASES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, During the Session , 1814—15. 55 Geo . III.SCOTLAND.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION, (2 d div .)
No. 4
Wilkie and Others Appellants v. Geddes Respondent
Feb . 27 , 1815 .INSURANCE. — SEA-WORTHINESS.Under the implied warranty of the assured, as to sea-worthiness, it is necessary not only that the hull of the vessel be tight, staunch, and strong, but that the ship be furnished with ground tackling sufficient to encounter the ordinary perils of the sea; and therefore, where it appeared that the best bower anchor, and the cable of the small bower anchor, were defective, the vessel was held not to be sea-worthy.The Appellants underwrote a policy of insurance on the ship Mary , of Stromness, for a voyagePage: 58 ↓
Page: 59 ↓
March 22, 1815.Judgment.Lord Eldon (C.) This was an action on a policy of insurance, for the amount of repairs done to a ship, in consequence of damage sustained by her driving from her anchorage, and taking the ground after the commencement of the risk. And the defence was, that the ship was not sea-worthy; and he need not inform their Lordships that there was an implied warranty in every such contract, that the ship was sea-worthy at the commencement of the risk. There might be evidence as to this from circumstances, at or before her sailing, or circumstances occurring after she sailed disabling her to proceed, but which would not have had that effect, if the vessel had been sea-worthy at the commencement of the risk, that is, at the time of her sailing on the voyage insured. Every ship ought to be sufficiently provided in cables and anchors, and the only question here was, whether or not this vessel had been so furnished. On the general principle nothing was more clear than that the Courts required not only that the ship itself should be tight, staunch, and strong, but that it should be furnished with sufficient ground tackle to encounter the ordinary perils of the sea, and another principle was that the Courts would require the evidence to be clear in the affirmative, as the interests of commerce and a due regard to the lives of the seamen were so much concerned, that thisPage: 60 ↓
Lord Redesdale . He agreed in that opinion. Unless the assured were bound to take care that the vessel was in every respect sea-worthy, the consequence would be most mischievous; for the effect of insurance would be to render those chiefly interested much more careless about the condition of the ship, and the lives of those engaged in navigating her. From the evidence in the present case it appeared not only that the best bower anchor was too light, but that the cable of the small bower anchor was wholly defective.Judgment of the Court below reversed .Solicitors: Agent for Appellants, Berry.Agent for Respondent, Mundell.