PERILS OF THE SEA. All marine cas ualties resulting from the violent action of the elements, as distinguished from their natural, silent influence upon the fabric of the vessel. The Warren Adams, 74 Fed. 413, 20 C. C. A. 486.
A phrase contained in bills of lading, and a class of dangers to goods carried, the effects of which the carriers do not under take to insure against in virtue of their gen eral undertaking.
Bills of lading generally contain an ex ception that the carrier shall not be liable for "perils of the sea." What is the pre cise import of this phrase is not, perhaps, very exactly settled. In a strict sense, the words perils of the sea denote the natural accidents peculiar to the sea; but in more than one instance they have been held to extend to events not attributable to natural causes.
Perils of the sea denote natural acci dents peculiar to that element, which do not happen by the intervention of man, nor are to be prevented by human prudence. It is a loss happening in spite of all human effort and sagacity ; 2 Kent 597, approved in The Majestic, 166 U. S. 386, 17 Sup. Ct. 597, 41 L. Ed. 1039. It is said to have a broader signification than the act of God and in cludes calamities not caused by violence or a convulsion of nature, such as lightning, flood, or tempest; The Majestic, 60 Fed. 624, 9 C. C. A. 161, 20 U. S. App. 503, on ap peal in The Majestic, 166 U. S. 386, 17 Sup. Ct. 597, 41 L. Ed. 1039, where Fuller, C. J., said that this might be the case, but did not decide the exact point.
Generally speaking the words "perils of the sea" have the same meaning in a bill of lading as in a policy of insurance. There is a difference in their effect in the two cases of contract. Where negligence of the mas ter or crew of the vessel contributes to a loss by a peril of the sea, an insurer is lia ble, because the insured does not warrant that his servants shall use due care, whereas the exception of perils of the sea in a bill of lading does not relieve the carrier from his primary obligation to carry with reasonable care, unless prevented by the excepted per ils ; but when it is distinctly found that there is no negligence, there is no reason for much inconvenience in holding that the words have different meanings in the two• kinds of commercial contract; The G. R.
Booth, 171 U. S. 450, 19 Sup. Ct. 9, 43 L. Ed. 234; Compania De Navigacion la Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104, 18 Sup. Ct. 12, 42 L. Ed. 398.
The damage must be due to an accident, of a kind peculiar to the sea, directly and exclusively, without any negligence on the part of the ship-owner or his servants, and must not be due to unseaworthiness of the ship when she started on the voyage ; Pol lock, Bill of Lading 40. "There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure ;" 12 App. Cas. 509.
Perils of the sea include a capture by pirates; Gage v. Tirrell, 9 Allen (Mass.) 310; loss by fire; Slater v. Rubber Co., 26 Conn. 128; Miller v. Nay. Co., 10 N. Y. 431; hidden obstructions in a river, recently brought there by the current; Redpath v. Vaughan, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 489 ; but see Friend v. Woods, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 189, 52 Am. Dec. 119; loss due to motion of the sea; Christie v. The Craigton, 41 Fed. 62 ; but not by the natural and inevitable action of winds and waves; 12 App. Cas. 509; by a tidal wave and flood of unusual violence; Pearce v. The Thomas Newton, 41 Fed. 106. Also the following, if the immediate damage is caused by salt water ; rolling and pitching of the ship in rough weather; 32 L. T. 847; running ashore in a fog; L. R. 9 Ex. 339; foundering in a collision; 12 App. Cas. 509; rough seas although not extraordinary ; The Newport News, 199 Fed. 968 ; a loss caused by water entering a water-tight compart ment through an open deacllight; Starbuck v. Ins. Co., 19 App. Div. 139, 45 N. Y. Supp. 995 ; damage to a cargo by sea water en tering the hold around a loose rivet is a loss by perils of the sea ; The Sandfield, 92 Fed. 663, 34 C. C. A. 612.