46 U.S.C. § 30704
Loading, stowage, custody, care, and delivery
A carrier may not insert in a bill of lading or shipping document a provision avoiding its liability for loss or damage arising from negligence or fault in loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery. Any such provision is void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: In Re: M/V MSC Flaminia, 72 F.4th 430 (2d Cir. 2023).
In Re: M/V MSC Flaminia, 72 F.4th 430 (2d Cir. 2023). “That was erroneous because the Sea Waybills’ indemnification provision is partially unenforceable under the Harter Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30704 . Clause 15.1 of the Sea Waybills provides that when Deltech or Stolt deliver “Goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature” to MSC, Deltech and…”
Starrag Starrag-Heckert Inc. v. Maersk, Inc., a New York Corp. Maersk Pac. Ltd., a California Corp., 486 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2007). “The current version of the Harter Act similarly provides: A carrier may not insert in a bill of lading or shipping document a provision avoiding its liability for loss or damage arising from negligence or fault in loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery.”
Thyssenkrupp Materials NA, Inc. v. M/V Kacey, 236 F. Supp. 3d 835 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “” 46 U.S.C. § 30704 . The Harter Act actually defines “carrier” more expansively than the bills of lading to include the manager of a vessel, which in this case would include Technomar.”
Liberty Woods Int'l, Inc. v. Motor Vessel Ocean Quartz, 219 F. Supp. 3d 494 (D.N.J. 2016). “46 U.S.C.A. §§ 30704 , 30705, Pub.L. 109-304, § 6 (c), Oct.”
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 651 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011). “Nevertheless, FIC maintains that the covenant not to sue is prohibited by an alternative legal regime — -the Harter Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30704 (2006). 2 FIC neglected to make its Harter *1178 Act argument in its filings in the district court or its initial briefs on appeal.”
Liberty Woods Int'l In v. Motor Vessel Ocean Quartz, 889 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Upon analyzing 46 U.S.C. §§ 30704 and 30705, the District Court held that Congress modified COGSA’s language so that it no longer 3 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.”
M3 Midstream LLC v. South Jersey Port Corp., 1 F. Supp. 3d 289 (D.N.J. 2014). “” 46 U.S.C.A. § 30704 . COGSA applies from “tackle to tackle,” meaning “the period of time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship.”
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 891 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “” 46 U.S.C. § 30704 . The Act, however, does not void “provisions limiting a carrier’s liability, but only those absolving a carrier of liability for its own negligence.”
AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. M/V IMABARI LOGGER (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “The closest it comes is a statement that, “[a] carrier may not insert in a bill of lading or shipping document a provision avoiding its liability for loss or damage arising from negligence or fault in loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery.”
Starrag v. Maersk, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007). “46 U.S.C. § 30704 . The differences between the two versions are immate- rial to our holding.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.