148 CARRIAGE BY SEA HY SPECIAL CONTRACT. 



loss or damage to horses entrusted to their custody for carri- 

 age, (a) They are protected at common law from losses due 

 to inevitable accident, (6) and, in certain cases, inherent vice 

 of the horse carried.(c) They are protected by statute from 

 loss by fire, or loss due to the fault of a pilot when his 

 employment is compulsory by statute. (c?) The Carriers Act, 

 1830, (e) moreover, has no application in carriage by 

 water ; nor is there any provision under the Merchant Ship- 

 ping Act(/) under Avhich a shipowner may assume the 

 responsibility for safe carriage of animals on a declaration 

 of their value and payment of an increased rate by the 

 shipper ; accordingly, shipowners are left free to limit their 

 responsibility by notices which are now framed, fencing them 

 against almost every possible contingency. (</) 



A shipowner, by contracting to carry horses, impliedly 

 undertakes that his ship is seaworthy at the time of sail- 

 ing, (^) and this arises from his position as a shipowner, and 

 not as a common carrier ;(i) but even this implied warranty 

 has been the subject of limitation in a bill of lading. (y) The 

 seaworthiness required depends on the nature of the Yoyage,(/i;) 

 and extends in the case of animals to a reasonable fitness for 

 their carriage Avith safety. (^) Thus, a shipper shipped cattle 

 under a bill of lading, agreeing that the shipowner was not 

 to be liable for accidents, disease, or mortality, and under no 

 circumstances for more than £5 per head. The ship, after 

 having carried a cargo of cattle with foot-and-mouth disease 

 on a previous voyage, was left improperly cleansed, the 

 shipper's cattle took the disease, and the plaintiff suffered 



{a) §93. (b) §§ 93, 116. (c) § 109. (d) § 117. 



(e) 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 68. 



(/) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 



(g) See notice in form of bill of lading, Appendix vii. See § 105 and Doolan 

 there cited ; also §§ 111, 114. 



(h) Cohn V. Davidson, 1877, 2 Q.B.D. 455. 



{/) Kopitoffv. Wilson, 1876, 1 Q.B.D. 377 ; Lord Sh.ind in Cimntngham v. Col- 

 v{Is<i- Co., 1888, 16 R. 295. 



U) The Laertes, 1887, 12 P.T). 187. 



{k) Daniels v. Harris, 1874, L.R. 10 C.P. 1. 



(/) See § 98. 



