Wholesale Cigar Humidors ,Cigar Cases, Cigar Boxes from customfinehumidors.com
Alhambra Cigar V
2
Alhambra cigar v. La Granja Doctrine: A vessel althoug h not abandoned may be subject of salvage if at th e time the ser vices were rendered there was probable, threatening danger of the vessel or of the cargo to be damaged. Facts: Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Ma nufacturing loaded upon the barge Nieva 350 bales of tobacco and 250,000 pieces of rattan. While the barge was navigating along the Cagayan River, the owner of Nieva hired the launch Triton, owned by La Granja Inc., to tow Nieva. Such action was prompted by fear of an impending flood due to two typhoons that had just struck the vicinity. Unfortunately, as the convoy approached the portion of the river known as Hurdle 10, the rope that connected both vessels broke. This caused Nieva to be swept by the current into the open sea where it eventually disappeared. Alhambra (own er of the cargo) sued the owner of both vessels. While Nieva blamed the disaster to La Granja, the latter denied responsibility for the damages saying that the same has been caused by force majeure. The trial court ruled against La Granja on the ground that the latter has been negligent for attempting to tow an overloaded vessel, for not sending a bigger launch to rescue Nieva and for using a defective cable in towing Nieva. Issue: 1) what was the nature of the contract between Nieva and La Granja? Salvage 2) Is anyone liable for the loss? . The contract between the two vessels was a salvage contract. A vessel although not abandoned may be subject of salvage if at the time the services were rendered there was probable, threatening danger of the vessel or of the cargo to be damaged. In the case at bar, there is no question that at the time the contract was entered into there was an imminent danger to Nieva and to its cargoes due to the impending flood. The SC absolved both owners and attributed the loss to force majeure. o First, the rope used to connect the vessels was actually only 2 years old and was barely used at that. The reason why it snapped can be reasonably attributed to the strong currents of the river. o Second, Nieva was not overloaded as in fact it could still carry 4.6 more tons of cargoes. o Third, a bigger launch could not have been used to salvage Nieva because it was at the time traversing shallow waters. o Finally, the crew of both vessels were shown to have exercised due diligence. In fact, the captain of Nieva stayed with it even when it drifted to the open sea in an attempt to save the cargo, which left him drifting for three days and nights without any food and water. Furthermore, the course taken by vessels was the proper course in navigating the Cagayan River.
-
Upload
colbenjaminasiddao -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Alhambra Cigar V
8/10/2019 Alhambra Cigar V
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alhambra-cigar-v 1/1
Alhambra cigar v. La GranjaDoctrine:
A vessel although not abandoned may be subject of salvage if at the time the services were
rendered there was probable, threatening danger of the vessel or of the cargo to bedamaged.Facts:
Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing loaded upon the barge Nieva 350 bales of
tobacco and 250,000 pieces of rattan.While the barge was navigating along the Cagayan River, the owner of Nieva hired the
launch Triton, owned by La Granja Inc., to tow Nieva. Such action was prompted by fear ofan impending flood due to two typhoons that had just struck the vicinity.
Unfortunately, as the convoy approached the portion of the river known as Hurdle 10, the
rope that connected both vessels broke. This caused Nieva to be swept by the current intothe open sea where it eventually disappeared.
Alhambra (owner of the cargo) sued the owner of both vessels. While Nieva blamed the
disaster to La Granja, the latter denied responsibility for the damages saying that the samehas been caused by force majeure.
The trial court ruled against La Granja on the ground that the latter has been negligent
for attempting to tow an overloaded vessel, for not sending a bigger launch to rescue Nievaand for using a defective cable in towing Nieva.Issue: 1) what was the nature of the contract between Nieva and La Granja? Salvage 2) Isanyone liable for the loss?
.
The contract between the two vessels was a salvage contract. A vessel although not
abandoned may be subject of salvage if at the time the services were rendered there wasprobable, threatening danger of the vessel or of the cargo to be damaged.
In the case at bar, there is no question that at the time the contract was entered into there
was an imminent danger to Nieva and to its cargoes due to the impending flood.
The SC absolved both owners and attributed the loss to force majeure.
o First, the rope used to connect the vessels was actually only 2 years old and wasbarely used at that. The reason why it snapped can be reasonably attributed tothe strong currents of the river.o Second, Nieva was not overloaded as in fact it could still carry 4.6 more tons ofcargoes.o Third, a bigger launch could not have been used to salvage Nieva because it wasat the time traversing shallow waters.o Finally, the crew of both vessels were shown to have exercised due diligence. In
fact, the captain of Nieva stayed with it even when it drifted to the open sea inan attempt to save the cargo, which left him drifting for three days and nightswithout any food and water. Furthermore, the course taken by vessels was theproper course in navigating the Cagayan River.
