安全港及安全船席（上）

楊仁壽

關於指定安全港之義務，在損害發生的因果關係方面，被認為船舶所有人責任上的問題，在海運實務上經常可以見到。舉例以言，在實際上，定期傭船人所指定的港口或船席，船長本身即使充分了解並非「安全港」，具有危險性，應該加以拒絕，或者發生損害的原因，所指定的港口或船席不具有安全性，卻因船長或海員的過失，不加以拒絕等等之類的，均其適例。

此在Gilmore & Black所著The Law of Admiralty一書中（註1），曾作翔實而權威的說明，殊有參考的必要，該書就所謂「安全港與席位——始終漂浮」（Safe Ports and Berths－Always Afloat）（註2），作了說明：「在本條第2款的第一個空格內，填入了某個港口，作為裝貨港，雖然並非千篇一律，但這是典型的作法。此外，允許傭船人在某一特定的地理範圍內，選擇一個或多個港口作為卸貨港，這種作法也極為普通（Typically, a single port is named as the port of lading filling in the first blank in the second paragraph of the clause, though this is not invariably true. But it is very common for the charterer to be given the option of discharge at one or more ports within a given geographic range）。」

在卸貨港空格後，有一段文字，即「在簽發載貨證券時指定的」，這是指卸貨港必須在裝貨時及發航之前作出選擇，運費費率往往隨所選港口的不同變化，賦予傭船人以這樣的選擇權，此乃出於合理的商業考慮，因為在確定傭船契約時，傭船人有可能還未確定其貨物的最佳市場在何處（The words “as ordered on signing Bills of Landing,”  following the port-of-discharge blank, mean that the option must be exercised at the time of loading and before the vessel sails, sometimes the rate of freight will be variable, depending on the choice made. The charterer is given this option for the sound commercial reason that he may not, at the time the charter is fixed, know where the best market for his goods will be found）。

傭船人對船舶開往的港口及船席，具有自由選擇的決定權，但此項權利往往受到傭船契約中，常見的的2項條款的影響。其一是所謂「安全港條款」，金康格式儘管無此條款，但在可開往的港口範圍內，卻列明了任何可能不安全的港口，在空格內填寫的可能權限，僅限於「安全港口」（Two frequently-encountered provisions affect the charterer’s freedom of choice as to ports and berths to which he may order the vessel. The first is the so-called “safe-posts” clause. Our Gencon form does not contain such a clause; where however, the range of ports set out as available contained any ports that might be unsafe, the words filling in the blanks would probably would probably stipulate for “safe ports” only）。

以下條款，摘自於某一傭船契約，這是曾訴之於法的典型條款（The following is a typical formula, found in a charter that got into litigation）（註3）：

「……（按傭船人或其代理人的指示）再駛往始終漂浮的愛爾蘭昆士敦港或英格蘭的法茅斯港，等待卸貨指示，也可以駛往英國哈佛爾港與德國的漢堡港（包括這2個港口在內）之間的歐洲大陸的某一安全港（德國的盧昂港除外），或根據傭船人的選擇，指示船舶從西印度群島的班佩道斯駛往特拉華防波堤，等待在美國紐約港、波士頓或費城港或巴爾的摩港，或船舶能安全抵達並且始終漂浮的附近地點，在傭船人指定的、載貨證券上約定的碼頭，以慣常的方式，在慣常的地點交付貨物（(Thence to IRELAND Queenstown or ENGLAND Falmouth, cas directed by charterers or their agents), for order to discharge, always afloat, either at safe port in the UNITED KINGDOM or on the continent or Europe between FRANCE Havre and GERMANY Hamburg (both included), GERMANY Rouen excepted, or at option of charterers to order vessel from WEST INDIES Barbados to proceed to Delaware breakwater for orders to discharge a U.S.A. New York or Boston or Philadelphia or Baltimore, or so near the port of discharge as she may safely get and deliver the same, always afloat, in a customary place and manner, in such dock as directed by charterers, agreeably to bills of lading）。」

上述摘要，充分體現了「安全港」條款的作用（This extract well exhibits the use of the “safe ports” clause）。值得注意的是，「安全港」一詞，並非用於波士頓、紐約、費城港或巴爾的摩港，因為這些列名港口的安全性，業已舉世公認；然而，卸貨港的其他範圍，包括了英國本土的任何港口或哈佛爾港與德國漢堡港（包括這2個港口在內）之間，除盧昂港之外的任何歐洲大陸的港口，其範圍如此之廣泛及其不確定性，致使船舶所有人認為只要其本身未違反契約，就有必要保留不「出傭」船舶在不安全港所冒風險的權利（It is to be noted that the phrase is not used with regard to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore; the safety of these named ports is already Known; but the alternative range of discharge ports－anywhere in the UNITED KINGDOM or on the continent of Europe between Havre and GERMANY Hamburg except Rouen－is so wide and indefinite that the owner feels it necessary to reserve the right to decline to risk his vessel in an unsafe port, without being in default under his contract）。

又The Gazella一案（註4），也是一件典型的有關安全港著名的判例（The Gazella is a typical and well-Known “safe port” case）。該案中傭船契約規定，貨物應運往「簽發載貨證券時指定挪威或丹麥某個安全，直達港口交付」。傭船人要求船長簽發載貨證券時指定的港口為丹麥的阿爾堡，但卻遭到船長的拒絕，理由是船舶要進入該港，就勢必穿越峽灣或海灣淺灘，這對船舶不安全。法院審理結果，作出了有利於船舶所有人的判決，判令傭船人應賠償船舶所有人按傭船契約鎖定理應賺取的傭船費、貨物卸下的費用，以及由此而產生的倉儲費用及拖帶費用（The charter provided for delivery “ to a safe, direct, NORWEGIAN or DANISH port, as ordered on signing bill of lading……” The charterers tendered bills of lading naming DANISH Aalborg; these the master refused to sign, on the ground that this port was unsafe for his vessel, because of a bar across the fiord or inlet through which he had to pass to reach it. The Court sustained the master’s contention, and awarded as damages the net freight the vessel would have earned under the charter, plus the expenses of taking the cargo out, and wharfage and towage charges incurred）。

與「安全港」條款密切相關的另一規定，是船舶僅有義務開往「船舶能安全抵達，並始終漂浮的附近地點（即裝貨港或卸貨港）」，金康即其他絕大多數傭船契約都設有此規定，該規定可視為「安全船席」條款（註5）。基於此一規定所產生的爭議，往往是因船舶不能安全停靠指定的碼頭時，涉及到誰承擔由此而產生的轉駁費或其他必需費用的問題。關於處理該問題的註明判例，是Menche v. A. Cargo of Java Sugar一案（註6）。在該案中，傭船人指定紐約為卸貨港，傭船契約中除上述提及的安全港條款外（註7），又另設一條款規定：「傭船人可指示船舶開往最方便的錨地，但應承擔任何運往或卸離始終漂浮船舶之貨物所產生的風險及費用；為使船舶進入目的港而發生的接駁費用，不論該港是否有相反的慣例，均應由受貨人承擔（註8）」（Closely connected with the “safe ports” stipulation is the provision, found in our charter and appearing in variant forms in most, that the vessel shall be obligated to go only “so near thereto (i. e., to the port of lading or discharge) as she may safely get and always lie afloat”. This may be looked on as a stipulation for a “safe berth”. The dispute with regard to this clause sometimes concerns the question of who is to pay for lighterage or other expenses necessitated by alleged inability of the ship to tie up safely at time designated wharf. A classic case on this matter is Mencke v. A Cargo of Java Sugar. The charterer had designated New York as the port of discharge. One of the relevant clauses of the charter has already been quoted; another provided: “All goods to be brought to and taken from alongside of the ship, always afloat, at the said charterers’ risk and expense, who may direct the same at the same at the most convenient anchorage; lighterage, if any, to reach the port of destination, or deliver the cargo at port of destination, remains for account of receivers, any custom of the port to the contrary notwithstanding”）。

指定的卸貨地點，位於美國布魯克林大橋上游，但因船舶主桅太高，無法從橋下通過。法院贊同船舶所有人的觀點，認為在這種情況下，傭船人所指定的碼頭，不是船舶能以慣常方式，可安全抵達的慣常地點（The designated point of discharge was above the U.S.A. Brooklyn Bridge; it was found that the vessel’s masts were too high to permit her to pass under that structure. The court agreed with the vessel owner that the designated dock was not, under these circumstances, a place to which the ship might “safely get……in a customary place and manner”）。

不把船舶開往指定港口或船席，船舶所有人或船長是否有過失；船舶所有人或船長如同上面所討論的案件一樣，拒絕將船舶開往指定的港口或船席，由此產生的額外費用是否要進行適當的分擔等相關問題，在「安全港」及「安全船席」訴訟案件的爭議中，占據了絕大多數。如果指定的港口或船席不安全，顯然就應免除船長不把船舶開往這一港口或船席的責任，而由此產生的接駁等額外費用，應由傭船人承擔。然而，近期的某些權威判例，就「安全港」及「安全船席」條款，提出了與之大相逕庭的觀點，即只要是由於船舶駛入不安全港或停靠不安全船席，而造成船舶損壞，不論有無過失，傭船人都要承擔責任（註9）。此等判例主張的觀點似乎過於極端化，對待這類問題，首先要探究事情的原委，較為適宜（Most “safe port” and “safe berth” cases have involved the question whether the shipowner or the master was at fault for not going into the designated port or berth－or the connected question (as in the case just discussed) of the proper allocation of extra expenses consequest on the owner’s or the master’s refusal to send the ship port or the berth in unsafe, the mast is excused from taking his ship in, and the charterer must bear the extra expense, such as lighterage, entailed by the refusal. In fairly recent times, in some authorities, a quite different consequence has been suggested for the “safe port” and “safe berth” clauses: that the charterer, regardless of fault, be held liable for damages to the ship resulting from her having entered an unsafe port, or tied up at an unsafe berth. It is submitted that question upon the reason of the thing）。

船長把船舶駛入不安全港口或停靠不安全船席，而其後果卻要由傭船人承擔，在通常情況下，這種做法與當事人雙方所處的地位極不協調。首先，船長是航海專家，並配有各種助航設備；第二，船舶的性能（包括船舶的吃水與當時的平衡狀態），他最熟悉；第三，他就在現場，而傭船人根本不是航海行家，除了運載能力外，對船舶一無所知，要求傭船人對遠在千里之外的港口或船席作出是否安全的決定，實在勉其所難。傭船人指定船舶開往某個港口或船席，眾所周知，這是出於商業上的考慮，而非出於航海上的原因（It is quite inconsonant with the positions of the parties, in the usual case, to charge the charterer with the consequence of the master’s having entered an unsafe port or tied up at an unsafe berth. It is the master who ordinarily has the best means of judging the safety of a port or berth, first because he is an expert in navigation, furnished with aids thereto, secondly because he knows his vessel (including its draft and its present trim), and thirdly because he is on the spot. The charterer, on the other hand, need not be a nautical expert at all, knows nothing about the vessel except its capacity, and normally is far from the scene of decision as to safety; his designations of port and berth are made (and are known to be made) on commercial rather than on nautical grounds）。

（待續）

【註】

1. Grant Gilmore and Charles L. Black, Jr. The Law of Admiralty, second edition, pp. 202~207。
2. cit. § 4-4 (Gilmore & Black)。也即針對了NYPE Form第1條第2款所作解釋。
3. Menche v. A. Cargo of Jave Suger, 187 U.S. 248, 251, 23 S. Ct 86, 87 (1902)。
4. 128 U.S.474, 9 S. Ct 139 (1888)。
5. 但是僅僅規定「安全席位」，不一定就意味著擔保船舶在退潮時，也能漂浮的義務，參見Oil Transfer Corp. v. Spentonbush Fuel Transport Service一案，1940 A.M.C. 820 S.D.N.Y. 1940。
6. 187 U.S. 248, 23, S. Ct 86 (1902)。
7. 同註3。
8. 187 U.S. at 251, 23, S. Ct at 87。
9. 例如，20 The Soliciter 215 (1953)。