Historical and Contemporary Developments of the Maritime Carrier’s Liability and Its Application to Third Parties Who Are Not Parties to the Contract of Carriage
Boris Jerman, Ph. D., Head of Legal Department, Port of Koper, Port and Logistic System d.d., Vojkovo nabrežje 38, 6501 Koper, Slovenia; boris.jerman@luka-kp.si; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2210-3302
Abstract
This article examines the development of the maritime carrier’s liability in the carriage of goods by sea and its extension to third parties who are not parties to the contract of carriage by sea. The focus is on examining the basis of the maritime carrier's liability as it has developed throughout history. The analysis begins with the period of Ancient Rome, where transportation was regulated by the contractual type of locatio conductio, which was based on fault liability. However, under the Praetorian edict, the maritime carrier’s liability began to be assessed based on strict liability. This liability remained unchanged until the 19th century, when advancements in shipping technology increased the maritime carriers’ bargaining power. They began, on the basis of the principle of contractual freedom, to insert provisions into the bill of lading by which they exempted themselves from any liability. For this reason, regulations were introduced at the national and international levels requiring the maritime carrier to make the ship seaworthy with due diligence. Mentioned obligation could not be excluded by contractual provisions. This resulted in the maritime carrier becoming liable on the basis of fault-based liability. Trends in maritime transport liability continue to move away from the basic postulates of civil and common law, namely that contracts bind only the parties. Under the Himalaya Clause doctrine, other participants in maritime transport and in certain cases also in inland transport, which is related to maritime transport, began to invoke the liability provisions applicable to the maritime carriers, although they were not parties to the contracts that they concluded with their customers.
Keywords: locatio navis; locatio rerum vehendarum; Harter Act; Hague Rules; Hamburg Rules; Rotterdam Rules; seaworthiness; Himalaya Clause
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.75.4.6
Hrčak ID: 341527
URI: https://hrcak.srce.hr/341527
Pages: 639-676
Povijesni i suvremeni razvoj odgovornosti pomorskog prijevoznika i njezina primjena na treće osobe koje nisu stranke ugovora o prijevozu
Dr. sc. Boris Jerman, voditelj Pravnog odjela Luke Koper, Port and Logistic System d.d., Vojkovo nabrežje 38, 6501 Koper, Slovenija; boris.jerman@luka-kp.si; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2210-3302
Sažetak
Ovaj članak obrađuje razvoj odgovornosti pomorskog prijevoznika pri prijevozu stvari morem te njezino proširenje na treće osobe koje nisu stranke ugovora o prijevozu morem. Fokus je na proučavanju osnova odgovornosti pomorskog prijevoznika i njihovu razvoju tijekom povijesti. Analiza počinje u razdoblju antičkoga Rima, kada je prijevoz bio uređen u okviru ugovora locatio conductio (operis), koji se temeljio na odgovornosti prema kriteriju krivnje. Međutim, pretorskim ediktom odgovornost pomorskog prijevoznika postrožena je te je uvedena njegova objektivna odgovornost. Ta se odgovornost uglavnom zadržala do 19. stoljeća, kada je, zbog napretka u brodskoj tehnologiji, porasla pregovaračka moć pomorskih prijevoznika, koji su u okviru ugovorne slobode počeli u teretnice unositi klauzule kojima su zapravo isključivali gotovo svaku svoju odgovornost. Iz tog su razloga na nacionalnoj i međunarodnoj razini uvedeni propisi kojima se od pomorskog prijevoznika zahtijevalo da s dužnom pažnjom osposobi brod za plovidbu, a tu svoju obvezu nije mogao isključiti ugovornim odredbama. Time je pomorski prijevoznik ponovno postao odgovoran na temelju krivnje. Trendovi u području odgovornosti u pomorskom prijevozu nastavljaju se udaljavati od osnovnih postulata građanskog i anglosaskog prava, odnosno od načela da ugovori obvezuju samo njihove stranke. Prema doktrini Himalaya-klauzule, i drugi sudionici u pomorskom prijevozu, a u određenim slučajevima i u kopnenome prijevozu koji je povezan s pomorskim, počeli su se pozivati na odredbe o odgovornosti koje se primjenjuju na pomorskog prijevoznika, iako nisu bili stranke ugovora koje je on sklapao sa svojim klijentima.
Ključne riječi: locatio navis; locatio rerum vehendarum; Harter Act; Haška pravila; Hamburška pravila; Rotterdamska pravila; sposobnost broda za plovidbu; Himalaya-klauzula
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.75.4.6
Hrčak ID: 341527
URI: https://hrcak.srce.hr/341527
Stranice: 639-676