VOLCAFE CASE - COMMON LAW VS. VISBY HAGUE RULES: IS IT ONE VERSUS ANOTHER?

Abstract

In a significant recent judgment, the UK Supreme Court had clearly clarified the question of who bears the burden of proof. The decision in Volcafe Ltd and others v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA2 (hereinafter Volcafe) confirms that where the ship owner occurred a loss or damage to the cargo, the carrier now has the burden to prove that he had exercised a reasonable degree of skill and care, and the loss had happened nonetheless. Today many scholars are discussing that the Volcafe case switches the burden of proof for cargo damage and now carriers must demonstrate compliance, rather than cargo owners (cargo interests) demonstrate causative negligence. However, it is not believed that this is a challenging task for a carrier.

Keywords

• Hague Visby Rules
• Volcafe Case
• Burden of Proof
• Common Law
• Responsibility of the Carrier / Cargo Owner

VOLCAFE DAVASI - ANGLO SAKSON HUKUK SİSTEMİ VE LAHEY KURALLARI: KURALLAR BİRBİRLERİYLE CATIŞIYOR MU?

Abstract

Yakın tarihli önemli bir kararda, İngiltere Yüksek Mahkemesi, ispat yükümlülüğünü kimin üstlendiği sorusunu açıkça ortaya koymuştur. Volcafe Ltd and others v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA1 gemi sahibinin kargoda bir kayıp veya hasar meydana geldiği durumlarda, taşıyanın makul derecede özen gösterdiğini kanıtlama yükü olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Günümüzde birçok bilim insanı, Volcafe davasının kargo hasarına ilişkin kanıt yükünü değiştirdiğini ve taşıyanın ispat yükünü ağırlaştırdığını tartışmaktadır. Fakat bu görüşlerin aksine, bu makalede Volcafe davasının taşıyan için zorlaştırıcı bir görev olmadığını ve ispat yükünü ağırlaştırmadığı noktası tartışılacaktır.

Keywords

• Lahey Kuralları
• Volcafe Davası
• İspat Yükü
• Anglo Sakson Hukuku
• Gemi Sahibinin Sorumluluğu

References

1. Brodkey, Edward, Practical Aspects of Bailment Proof, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 45 (1962), 531-545.
2. Carver, Thomas Gilbert, Carriage by Sea, 13th edn. (1982).
3. Cheston, J. Hamilton, The Burden of Proof Where There Has Been Loss by Bailee, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 68 (1920), 179-182.
4. Ezeoke, Chinyere, Allocating Onus of Proof in Sea Cargo Claims: The Contest of Conflicting Principles, Lloyds Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, (2001), 261-284.
5. Helmholz, Richard H., Bailment Theories and the Liability of Bailees: The Elusive Uniform Standard of Reasonable Care, University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship (1992), 97-135.
6. Kassem, Ahmad Hussam, The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness: Current Law and Development, (2006).
7. Levy, Idrienne E., Bailments, Negligence, Burden of Proof in Case of Loss or Damage, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 22 (1944), 252-260.
8. Moeller, James L., Bailments: Allocation of the Burden of Proving the Bailee's Negligence--Broadview Leasing Co. v Cape Central Airways Inc., Missouri Law Review, Vol. 43 (1978), 90-98.

9. Schoenbaum, Thomas J., Admiralty and Maritime Law, 5th edn. (2012).
10. Scrutton, Thomas Edward, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 23rd edn. (2015).
11. Todd, Paul, Hague Rules and burden of proof. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (2017), 169-175.
12. YETİŞ-ŞAMLI, Kübra, Lahey-Lahey/Visby, Hamburg ve Rotterdam Kuralları’nda Sefere Elverişlilik, Cilt: 71, Sayı: 2, Ocak 2013, Sayfa: 479-496.