Jettison. Where goods are thrown overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship during a storm, the owners, both of the ship and of the cargo saved, are liable to the owners of the goods thrown out for the common benefit, in a proportion of the loss. The necessity of the measure must be determined upon by the master and a majority of the mariners. But where the mast goes by the board, or the anchor is lost through the violence of the storm, and not by a voluntary act for the general benefit, the loss falls on the ship and freight alone. And even where any of these articles have been cut away to avoid danger, there is no contribution if the danger arose from the state of the articles themselves.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Jettison.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Jettison |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al | 1793 | Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison | James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss. |
| Lindsay v. M'Laren | 1780 | Admiralty, Jettison | This case was about liability for goods jettisoned from a ship. Alexander Maclaren, master of the Diligence of Fortrose, caused goods belonging to David Lindsay to be thrown overboard during a storm. Lindsay sued Maclaren in the High Court of Admiralty, seeking compensation. Lindsay claimed that when goods were ejected to save a ship, it was the master’s duty to apportion liability among all owners of the ship’s cargo; according to Lindsay, Maclaren had failed to do this. Maclaren, in turn, brought an action against all the owners, including Lindsay, so that their liability could be calculated. Lindsay was successful in his action before the High Court of Admiralty, and Maclaren (together with his cautioner, Alexander Mackenzie) offered a bill of suspension in the Court of Session. Maclaren argued that the proceeding should be stayed until his action against the owners was concluded. However, Lindsay argued that Maclaren was liable because he failed to make up an average-bill apportioning liability to the other owners, and because he improperly stowed Lindsay’s goods above deck. |
| Richardson and Co v. Stoner, Hunter, and Ker | 1783 | Jettison | This case was about apportioning liability for a cargo of salmon that was partially jettisoned and partially sold for a lower-than-expected price before reaching its planned destination. The owners of the salmon raised an action for damages against their underwriters, as well as the merchants who sold the salmon and the shipmaster-owner of the vessel; they argued that the shipmaster lacked authority to make the sale. The underwriters argued that although the relevant policy covered the jettisoned cargo, it did not apply to a partial loss such as the allegedly premature sale. |
