美國法院對安全港的詮釋

楊仁壽

依照美國法院的見解，定期傭船人對安全港（safe port）及安全船席（safe berth），負有明示的擔保（express warranty）責任，也就是其所配船之港口或船席，必須使其承傭的輪船，「經常保持漂浮的狀態，可以安全的停泊」（safely lie, always afloat）。如未達此一程度，傭船人即應負責。

例如在Cities Service Transp Co. v. Gulf Refining Co.一案，美國第二巡迴法院（註1），即判稱：「傭船契約本身，就應保證船舶在其所指定之船席，經常保持漂浮的狀態，可以安全的停泊，船長有要求依該擔保的權利（the charter party was itself an express assurance on which the Master was entitled to rely, that at the berth indicated the ship would be able to lie always afloat）。」在Park Steamship Co. v. Cities Service Oil Co.一案（註2），亦持同樣的見解。

事實上，根據英國或美國法院的判例，都認為在定期傭船契約內，只要有「經常保持漂浮的狀態，安全的停泊」（safely lie, always afloat）之文字，定期傭船人就已構成明示的擔保，其所配船之港口或船席，必須具有安全性，不必再就其他字句，多所著磨。

此就仲裁審在The Oceanic First一案（註3），對於安全港的擔保，已然說明得相當透澈：「2件傭船契約，都載明本船僅能被使用於安全港間之句，業已擔保約束包含僅能於安全的船席裝卸貨物，就此點而言，兩造都不爭執（There is no dispute that both Charters contain a warranty that the vessel will only be employed between Safe Ports and that she will only be load and/or discharged at Safe Berths）。」

此項擔保依一般的考量，實已具有如次的保證：亦即我們相信，本船為了卸貨，可以進入了港口及出港，除非碰到有不能預期的異常狀態，否則就應依妥當的航海操船技術，不會帶來過度使本船遭到物理上的損壞，此事是可以料到的（We believe it is generally accepted that this warranty is an undertaking that this vessel could proceed to discharge her cargo and depart from the port and that in the absence of some abnormal and unforeseen occurrence and given good navigation and seamanship this could be done without undue risk of physical damage to the vessel）。此一擔保，就本船在新瀉所指示的各期間卸貨，已有明文當該船舶在該港停泊各期間中，可以按照合理預想的狀態予以行動（The warranty is expressly given for each period the vessel was ordered to discharge at Niigate and must be weighed in light of the Known conditions which one could reasonably expect would prevail during each call of the vessel at the Port）。

不僅如此，在80年代，已有2個判決，即Bunge Co. v. M/V Furness Bride（註4）及Appeal of U.S. Linces, Inc.（註5），都判決課予定期傭船人「提供完全安全船席之契約上的義務」（contractual duty to provide a completely safe berth），以及「完成港灣管理人所具有善良的注意義務，並負有警告所隱藏危險的義務」（wharfinger’s duty to exercise due diligence and to warn the vessel of hazards that are not are not open and apparent）。

根據美國的判例，採用港口必須就傭船契約所示特定船舶安全的原則。例如在The Zaneta一案（註6），Pyrgos號輪，在美國德拉威河（Delaware）Mantua Creek停泊擱淺，仲裁人即作有利於船舶所有人的判斷，指出：「Mantua Creek停泊處，就小型吃水淺的船舶而言，固然是可以安全的停泊地點，但對像Pyrgos號輪這樣長而且吃水深的船舶而言，則非安全……（although Mantua Creek Anchorage is a safe anchorage for smaller and lighter draft vessels, it is not safe for vessels the length and depth of the Pyrgos……）」等語，定期傭船人所承傭的船舶，其吃水深淺以及大小，攸關其安全甚鉅，不能一概而論，都認為是安全，或是不安全，必須就其所承傭「特定船舶」（particular ship）來判斷所配船港口或船席是否安全。

再者，定期傭船人所配船之河口，與船舶吃水之深淺亦有關聯，空船與載貨都必須能安全行駛，才合乎安全的原則，絕不能以空船能夠通過，即謂安全。如果船舶載貨時不能通過，仍然難謂安全。例如在The Gazella一案（註7），法院即認為：依傭船契約明示的條款規定，「傭船人有義務僅將該船配到安全，而且可以直達的挪威或瑞典的港口，或到達附近安全的港口，經常保持漂浮狀態可以停泊的處所卸載貨物（By the express terms of the charter-party, the charterers were bound to order the vessel “to a safe, direct, Norwegian or Danish port, or as near thereunto as she can safely get and always lay and discharge afloat”）。這一文義明確的意義，僅指必須配船到該船舶載貨的狀態可以安全進出港口，或者至少可以在港外停泊，以漂浮的狀態，得將貨物安全運送到港（The clear meaning of this is that she must be ordered to a port which she can safely enter with her cargo, or which, has a safe anchorage outside where she can lie and discharge afloat）。傭船人對於堅持拒絕配船到本傭船契約所要求的港口，或與之不同的港口這一點，自可判斷其必須負債務不履行的損害賠償責任（The charterers, having refused to order the vessel to such a port as the charter-party called for, and having insisted on ordering her to a different one, were rightly held to be in default and answerable in damages）」，此乃傭船人違反擔保安全港條款所招致的後果，灼然至明。

進而言之，在Crisp v. United States & Australasia S.S. Co.一案（註8），紐約南區地方法院判稱：「安全的裝載或卸載貨物場所的約定，包括傭船人所指定的港口，該船舶可以載滿貨物安全進港，亦可不接觸港底卸載全部貨物，並且當然也包刮即使碰到任何潮汐（漲潮或退潮），都不曝露於障礙（A covenant for a safe loading or discharging implies that a port to be named by the charterer shall be one where the vessel can safely get with her whole cargo and can discharge her whole cargo without touching the ground, and, of course, without being subject to obstructions, at any stage of the tide）。」

換言之，在上述Crisp一案，紐約南區地方法院就所謂「經常保持安全的漂浮狀態停泊」（always safely lie afloat）一詞，解為定期傭船人應負擔安全港的危險，即使有強制引水，致使船舶發生損害時，傭船人就該損害仍有責任（put the risk of a safe port on the charterers, and that the charterers were liable for damages even though they were caused when the vessel was under the control of a compulsory pilot）。此種解釋，尚合乎實情。

同樣情形，在The Naiad一案（註9），紐約地區仲裁人的仲裁判斷，亦稱：「因密西西比河南西水路，在季節上限制船舶吃水的結果，認為就被停止裝載的貨物，有收回的權利，因而仲裁審判定，安全港的擔保，不僅是船舶在河中的船席裝載貨物，而且在河口入口處，也都包括在內（the panel concluded that owners were entitled to recover deadfreight for cargo shut out as the result of a seasonal draft restriction at the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River. The panel held that the safe port warranty encompassed the entrance to the River, as well as the berths along the River at which the vessel’ loaded）。」可見美國法院或仲裁審對安全港一詞的定義，詮釋得相當明確。

【註】