摘要
第1章海上拖航的界定。海上拖航是指拖船对被拖物的拖带行为或服务,是一种内容非常宽泛的海上服务。通过对拖航性质学说的辨析,得出海上拖航合同是一种具有服务性质的有名合同,且按照具体情形的不同可分为具有雇佣特征和具有承揽特征的海上拖航合同。另外,在比较海上拖航与海上运输、海难救助港内拖航等其他海上服务行为诸多不同。
第2章海上拖航的适拖义务。主要以海上拖航中承拖方与被拖方的适拖义务为研究对象,通过研究英国、美国以及我国案例,总结出承拖方与被拖方各自的适拖义务,并参照英国判例,从首要义务、绝对义务、谨慎处理说的角度考证适拖义务的性质,最后结合适航义务的举证责任程序,提出了海上拖航中适拖义务的举证责任分配。
第3章海上拖航航程中的义务。拖航作业和拖航航行中,承拖方和被拖方之间义务的一般标准是尽到适当技能和注意。在此标准下,以控制地位为依据划分承拖方和被拖方之间的义务,并且分析了拖航航程中特殊情况——拖航受阻与放弃拖航中拖船的义务。承拖方和(或)被拖方对第三船的义务主要体现为尽到良好船艺和遵守航行规则。
第4章海上拖航的损害赔偿。拖航作业中的损害赔偿具有一般性和特殊性,本章综合考查了针对拖航特殊性发展出的支配者原则、雇佣推定、控制原则和中国法的规定,分析承拖方和被拖方之间的损害赔偿与涉及第三人的损害赔偿中的责任分配问题。
第5章海上拖航的责任免除。海上拖航中的责任免除包括合同约定的免责条款和法律规定的免责事由。该章对拖航标准合同中普遍存在的各种形式的免责条款进行了具体分析,如“雇佣条款”、"Named Vessel"条款,各国司法实践对于标准合同中的免责条款的效力一般不予认可。并从人为和自然力两个角度对法定免责事项进行了研究。
第6章海上拖航的转化救助。拖航与海上救助存在密切联系,本章重点讨论拖航向救助转化的两个条件：一是不能被双方合理预计的情形使被拖物处于危险之中,二是产生的风险或拖船履行的义务不在合同的范围内。本章还研究了拖航转化为救助的情况下对原合同的影响,拖航合同中存在的特殊条款和承拖方过失对取得报酬的影响。
第7章研究拖航的责任限制。认为海上拖航的责任限制,适用《1976责任限制公约》时具有一定的局限性；在英美,船舶的概念得到扩展,限制较少。英国是按照拖航船队中有过失的船舶各自的吨位分别限制责任。而美国法则区分索赔方和责任人之间是否存在合同关系,从商业目的的角度分析,进而产生了“船队规则”和“纯侵权”规则。我国海上拖航责任限制应在“船舶”的界定和拖船和被拖船责任限额的确定两个方面,适当吸收英美的合理做法进行完善。
Chapter1, Defines the Action and Character of Towage at Sea. While analysing the theories on the nature the towage, it is concluded that the contract of towage which has characteristics of employment contract or work contract in accordance to the specific circumstances, is a service contract as well as a specially named contract. In addition, this essay also discusses the differences between towage and related behaviors, such as carriage, salvage and towage within a port, and proposes some suggestions on the related provisions in "China's Maritime Code"(CMC).
Chapter2, The Towworthy Obligation of Towage at Sea, mainly focuses on the towworthy obligation of two parties under towage contract. By studying the cases of United Kingdom, the United States as well as the cases in China, the essay has summed up the obligation of the tug and the tow. With reference to the United Kingdom cases, the nature of the towworthy obligation is analysed from the point of overrding obligation, absolute obligation and reasonable care theory. After comparation with the burden proof procedure of seaworthiness, the essay puts forward legislative suggestions for the allocation of burden proof of towworthy in towage.
Chapter3, The Obiligation during Towage at Sea Voyage. During towing operation and towing voyage, the general standard of the duties between tug and tow is to excise proper skill and diligence, under which, according to the question of who is in charge of the towing operation, the duties are divided between them.Then special circumstances where towage is interrupted and termination of the towage is considered as to the duties upon the tug.The duties to a third party are embodied in the good seamanship and the navigation rules.
Chapter4, The Liability to Damages of Towage at Sea.Analyses the liability to damages between tug and tow and involving third parties from the perspectives of the generality and particularity of liability in towage, in which the "dominant mind", presumption of servant relationship, control theory and the provisions in CMC are considered correlatively and particularly.
Chapter5, The Exclusion of Liability in Towage at Sea. The exclusion includes exception clauses in towage contract and immunities in law. In chapter5, the essay analyses various forms of duty escaping clauses in towing standards contract, such as "employment terms and conditions","the Named Vessel" provision. Generally, the effectiveness of the exemption clause in standard contract will not be approved in judicial practice.The immunities in law mainly consists of man-made accidents and natural forces.
Chapter6, The Salvage Transforming of Towage at Sea. Towage is in close connection with salvage and in certain conditions they may transform mutually. The transforming needs two conditions:one is the tow is in danger because of circumstances incurred beyond reasonable consideration by the parties, and the other is risks incurred or duties performed by the tug are out of the scope of the contract. The two parties'duty and right are changed because of this transformation and special clause in towage contract as well as the tugowner's fault, which may affect the payment of salvage.
Chapter7, Limitation of Towage at Sea. There is certain limitation in the application of the1976Convention on limitation of liability concerning Towage at Sea, while it is accessible in the law of United Kingdom and United States. In the United Kingdom, the responsible party is limited to the tonnage of vessels at fault respectively. In United States, they distinguish contractual relationship and tort between the claimant and the responsible party from a commercial perspective, and consequently, the "flotilla rule" and "pure tort" rule is applicable widely. At last it is recommended that the Chinese law related to the definition of "ship" and the calculation of limitation of liability should be improved by refering to the reasonable practice of the UK&USA.
引文
1 The Princess Alice,166 E.R.914 (1849)3 W. Rob.138.
2 "the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another when nothing more is required than the accelerating (of) her progress" The Princess Alice,166 E.R.914 (1849) 3 W. Rob.138.
3 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海：上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2000(12)：1.
4 载驳船将驳船作为“浮动集装箱”,其运输方式与集装箱运输方式相仿。运输过程是：将货物先装载于统一规 格的方型货驳(子船)上,再将货驳装上载驳船(母船)上,载驳船将货驳运抵目的港后,将货驳卸至水面,再由拖船分送到各自目的地。载驳船的特点是不受港口水深限制,不需要占用码头泊位,装卸货物均在锚地进行,装卸效率高,便于海一河联运。目前有“拉西”型、“西比”型、“巴卡”型等类型。参见中国数字科技馆http://amuseum.cdstm.cn/AMuseum/ship/merchantships/vs/ys08.html.2013-11-24.
5 王欣主编.救捞国际标准合同.大连：大连海事大学出版社,2011：112.
6 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：148.
7 中国“海商法”“海上拖航合同”一章仅有10条规定；台湾地区《海商法》中“船舶拖带”作为“运送契约”项下的一节,仅有2条法律条文。
8 我国是一个例外,《海商法》第七章中的十条规定多为强制性规范。但这主要是由《海商法》立法之初中国的航运运作非常不成熟而需要法律加以引导的现实所决定的。
9 傅廷中.海上拖航的法律问题与实务.世界海运,2000(5)：50-51.
10 袁绍春.论海上拖航合同的免责条款.中国海商法年刊,2001：190.
11 曹阳辉.论海上拖航向海上救助拖带的转化.中国海商法年刊.2000：335-342.
12 邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究.大连：大连海事大学博上学位论文,2010(3).
13 徐曦哲.《合同法》对海上拖航合同适用之研究.大连：大连海事大学硕上学位论文,2005(3).
14 权赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001(11).
15 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海：上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2000(12).
16 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005.
Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011.
18 "the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another when nothing more is required than the accelerating (of) her progress" The Princess Alice,166 E.R.914 (1849) 3 W. Rob.138.
19 "The act or service of towing ships and vessels, usually by means of a small vessel called a tug." See Black Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,8th ed.2004:4650.
20 "Towage is a service rendered by one vessel to aid the propulsion or to expedite the movement of another vessel." See Thomas J. Schoenbaum. Admiralty and Maritime Law, Thomson West,4th ed.2004:§ 12-1.
21 威兼.泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：40.
22 参见中国《海商法》第155条第1款。
23 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008(2)：3.
24 Smith v. Pierce 1 La.349,1830 WL 686.
25 司玉琢,胡正良主编.《中华人民共和国海商法》修改建议稿条文、参考立法例、说明[M].大连：大连海事大学出版社,2003：402.
26 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：13.
27 拖带亦可泛指所有的拖航作业方式,除非另有说明,本文中的“拖带”即泛指所有拖航作业方式。
28 权赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001(11)：1-2.
20 "A vessel may be towed which has received no danger and is in no danger, but merely requires assistance to accelerate her speed, or assist her navigation in difficult waters." See Alfred Townsend Bucknill, The Law Relating to Tug and Tow. Stevens and Sons Ltd.,1913:6.
30 "A vessel may be towed under circumstances of danger to herself which make her safety dependent on towage assistance." See Alfred Townsend Bucknill, The Law Relating to Tug and Tow, Stevens and Sons Ltd.,1913:7.
31 Martin J. Norris, The Law of Salvage, Baker, Voorhis and Co.,1958:302.
32 中国“海商法”“海上拖航合同”一章仅有10条规定；台湾地区《海商法》中“船舶拖带”作为“运送契约”项下的一节,仅有2条法律条文。
33 "Under a contract of towage, the tug owners agree to provide services for the tow with tug, which they themselves officer, crew and supply, for an agreed or defined service or to attain an agreed defined result or for an agreed or defined period of time in exchange for periodic or lump sum payments." See Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:4.
34 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：154.
35 See Art.12 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
36 See Art.13,Art.14,Art.15 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
37 "A contract to perform a service." See Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.,8th ed.2004:985.
38 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008(2)：15.
39 傅廷中.海上拖航的法律问题与实务.世界海运,2000(5)：50.
40 Lukoil-Kaliningradmorneft plc v. Tata Ltd & Global Marine Inc. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 365.
41 "Lukoil was bailee of the tow because it "did take delivery and possession of the vessels sufficient to put it in the position of a bailee". See Lukoil-Kaliningradmorneft plc v. Tata Ltd & Global Marine Inc. [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 365.
42 Simon Rainey.The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rd ed).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:8-9.
43 Norman Palmer, Palmer on Bailment, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.,2009:para.1.047.转引自:Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded) [M]. London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:5.
44 威廉.泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：153.
45 The Julia, (1861) 14 Moo. PC 210.
46 The Minnehaha.15 E.R.444 (1861) 15 Moo. PC 133.
47 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,52 S.Ct.347,1932 A.M.C.468.
48 "Towing vessel... must exercise such reasonable care and maritime skill as prudent navigators employ for performance of similar service." Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195.52 S.Ct.347.1932 A.M.C.468.
49 In re Tug Beverly Inc.1994 WL 194891 (E.D.PA.),1994 AMC 2437.
50 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：177.
51 Harris v. Anderson.143 E.R.541(1863) 14 C.B. N.S.499.
52 Simon Rainey.The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded)[M]. London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:5.
53 The Kite [1933]P 154.
54 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,52 S.Ct.347,1932 A.M.C.468.
55 "under a towage contract the tug is not a bailee of the vessel in tow or its cargo" Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,52 S.Ct. 347,1932 A.M.C.468.
56 "The tug does not have exclusive control over the tow, but only so far as is necessary to enable the tug and those in charge of her to fulfill the engagement. They do not have control such as belongs to common carriers and other bailees. They have no authority over the master or hands of the towed vessel beyond such as is required to govern the movement of the flotilla. In all other respects and for all other purposes the vessel in tow, its cargo and crew, remain under the authority of its master; and, in emergency, the duty is upon him to determine what shall be done for the safety of his vessel and her cargo. In all such cases the right of decision belongs to the master of the tow and not to the master of the tug. A contract merely for towage does not require or contemplate such a delivery as is ordinarily deemed essential to bailment." Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,52 S.Ct.347,1932 A.M.C.468.
57 如, Sisung v. Tiger Pass Shipyard Co.,303 F.2d 318,322-23 (5th Cir.1962); Massman Constr. Co. v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines,462 F. Supp.1362,1367,1980 AMC 1164,1168-69 (W.D. Mo.1979); Agri-Trans. Corp. v. Peavey Co.,742 F.2d 1137,1139 (8th Cir.1984); Cargill, Inc. v. C&P Towing Co.,1992 AMC 392,395 (4th Cir.1991); CSX Transp., Inc. v. M/V Hellespont Mariner,943 F.2d 48,1991 WL 173045 (C.A.4 (Md.)),1992 A.M.C.398.
58 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,1955 AMC 899,99 L.Ed.911.
59 Charles E. Lugenbuhl David B. Sharpe, The Law of Towage at the Millennium:What Changes Are Needed,73 Tul.L.Rev.1999:1817.
60 Harris v. Anderson,143 E.R.541 (1863) 14 C.B. N.S.499.
61 The Tug Champlain [1939] 1 DLR 384.
62 "The occurrence of an accident raises no presumption against the tug and the burden is on the complaining party to prove a lack of ordinary care. "The Tug Champlain [1939] 1 DLR 384.
63 Chester D. Hooper & Jeanne-Marie D. Van Hemmen, Burdens of Proof Between Tugs & Tows,70 Tul. L. Rev. 1995:536-538.
64 参见台湾地区“民法典”第482条。
65 参见《侵权责任法》第34条、第35条。
66 "Whilst towing or whilst at the request, express or implied, of the Hirer, rendering any service other than towing, the master and crew of the tug or tender shall be deemed to be the servants of the Hirer and under the control of the Hirer and/or his servants and/or his agents, and anyone on board the Hirer's vessel who may be employed and/or paid by the Tugowner shall likewise be deemed to be the servant of the Hirer and the Hirer shall accordingly be vicariously liable for any act or omission by any such person so deemed to be the servant of the Hirer."
67 Harris v. Anderson,143 E.R.541 (1863) 14 C.B. N.S.499.
6S "The defendants are not the less liable because the owner of the tug may be liable also." Harris v. Anderson,143 E.R.541 (1863) 14 C.B. N.S.499.
69 郁志轰.美国海商法杭州大学出版社,1996：171.
70 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,1955 A.M.C.899 L.Ed.911.
71 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：150.
72 王泽鉴.民法摘编总论(第一册).台北：三民书局,1996：110.转引自：易军,宁红丽.合同法分则制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2003：376.
73 G.F.Woodroffe,Goods and Services-the New Law,Sweet & Maxwell,1982:97-98转引自：威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法[M].张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：152.
74 参见《合同法》第251条。
75 张民安,王红一.合同法.广州：中山大学出版社,2003：332-333.
76 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008(2)：13-14；李伟,王沛.指挥权原则：海上拖航合同法律性质判断标准.中国海商法年刊,2011,22(1)：29-30.
77 徐曦哲《合同法》对海上拖航合同适用之研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2005(3)：11-13.
78 如,台湾地区“民法典”第509条规定：“于定作人受领工作前,因其所供给材料之瑕疵或其指示不适当,致工作毁损、灭失或不能完成者,承揽人如及时将材料之瑕疵或指示不适当之情事通知定作人时,得请求其已服务劳之报酬及垫款之偿还,定作人有过失者,并得请求损害赔偿。”第512条规定：“承揽之工作,以承揽人个人之技能为契约之要素者,如承揽人死亡或非因其过失致不能完成其约定之工作时,其契约为终止。工作已完成之部分,于定作人为有用者,定作人有受领及给付相当报酬之义务。
79 史尚宽.债法各论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000：301.
80 司玉琢.海商法.北京：法律出版社,2007：233；傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社,2007：307-308.
81 参见：吴焕宁.海商法学.北京：法律出版社,1989：148：张湘兰,邓瑞平.姚天冲.海商法论.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1996：167：郭瑜.海尚法教程北京：北京大学出版社,2002：208;司玉琢.海商法.北京：法律出版社,2007：231.
82 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：35.
83 如,我国《海商法》中强制适用于航次租船合同的只有适航与禁止不合理绕航两项义务,其他条款均为任意性条款,当事人可以另行约定。另外,若有签发提单,则承运人与非船舶承租人的提单持有人之间要适用提单相关强制性规则的约束。
84 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海：上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2000(12)：4.
85 Smith v. Pierce,1 La.349,1830 WL 686 (La).
86 "They are responsible for damages occasioned by their negligence or default; but perhaps may not be subjected to all the rigour of the law relating to common carriers." Smith v. Pierce,1 La.349,1830 WL 686 (La).
87 Sacramento Navigation Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,47 S.Ct.368.
88 "Towage service is the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another. Here, while there was towage service, the contract actually made with respondent was not to tow a vessel, but to transport goods, and plainly that contract was a contract of affreightment." See Sacramento Navigation Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,47 S.Ct.368.
89 Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co.244 F.2d 263,1957 AMC 1647 (5th Cir.1957).
90 Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co.244 F.2d 263,1957 AMC 1647 (5th Cir.1957).
91 BIMCO 的 Projecton标准格式合同与Heavyliftvoy标准格式合同就是用于拖船所有人同时提供拖船与驳船进行货物运输的情形。
92 Wirth Ltd. v. S/S Acadia Forest,537 F.2d 1272,1976 AMC 2178(5th Cir.1976).
93 "vessels which are part of a common maritime enterprise should be viewed as one vessel in the eyes of the law", "they were in a real sense a vessel since they were loaded and thereafter nothing was discharged until delivered to the consignee's indicated destination." See Wirth Ltd. v. S/S Acadia Forest,537 F.2d 1272,1976 AMC 2178(5th Cir.
1976).
94 Sacramento Navigation Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,47 S.Ct.368.
95 "The hill of ladine declares that the cargo was shipped on board the barge. But it was to be transported; and this the barge alone was incapable of doing, since she had no power of self-movement.... the combination of tug and barge. was the'vessel transporting' the barley..."Sacramento Navigation Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,47 S.Ct.368.
96 Philin N. Davev. The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States.70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:481.
97 Hercules, Inc. v. Stevens Shipping Co.698 F.2d 726,1983 AMC 1786 (5th Cir.1983).
98 Agrico Chemical Company v. M/V Ben W. Martin 664 F.2d 85,1985 AMC 563 (5th Cir.1985).
99 "We conclude that the contract between Brent and Logicon was a contract of affreightment whereby Brent subcontracted with Logicon to perform part of its duties under its own affreightment contract with Agrico." Agrico Chemical Company v. M/V Ben W. Martin 664 F.2d 85,1985 AMC 563 (5th Cir.1985).
100 Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:486.
101 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：272.
103 "Although salvage may involve towing, it is distinguished from towing service, which is rendered merely to expedite a voyage, not to respond to dangerous circumstances." See Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co., 8th ed.2004:4173.
103 The "Minnehaha".15 E.R.444 (1861) 15 Moo. PC 133.
104 "When a steam tug engages to tow a vessel... she does not warrant that she will be able to do so, and will do s under all circumstances and at all hazards; but she engages that she will use her best endeavours for that purpose.. She may be prevented from fulfilling her contract by a vis major,... she is relieved from her obligations." See The Minnehaha (1861)Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
105 Simon Rainey.The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded) [M].London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:2.
106 The "Connemara",108 U.S.352,2 S.Ct.754,2003 A.M.C.1209,27 L.Ed.751.
107 "The contract of the tow-boat and her officers and crew was to tow the ship, and did not include the rendering of any salvage service by putting out fire or otherwise. Such a service, which, by the use of the steam-pump and engine of the tow-boat, rescued the ship from an unforeseen and extraordinary peril, gave the owner as well as the officers and crew of the tow-boat a right to salvage." The Connemara,108 U.S.352,2 S.Ct.754,2003 A.M.C.1209,27 L.Ed. 751.
108 如, Reliable Salvage and Towing, Inc. V.35" Sea Ray,2011 WL 1058863(M.D.Fla.),2011 A.M.C.712; N.E. Taylor Boatworks, Inc. V. The M/V Sir Winston,2011 WL 5358701 (M.D.Fla.); Atlantis Marine Towing, Inc. v. The M/V Priscilla 491 F.Supp.2d 1096 (S.D.Fla.2007).
109 朱清.对一宗海上拖航救助案的分析.中国海商法年刊,1991(2)：375-377.
110 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008(2)：7-8.
111 W. Archie Bishop, The Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995: 509.
112 "a matitime lien is not recognizes until the tug puts a line on the tow" See Philip N. Davcy, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
113 即原属厦门市所辖的东渡、海沧、嵩屿、刘五店、客运港区以及漳州的招银、后石、石码港区。
114 参见中国水运网：厦门湾八港区合并组建新厦门港远景目标：跨入世界强港行[EB/OL].[2012-12-25]. http://www.zgsvb.com/GB/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=124322013-12-25.
115 参见厦门网：交通部批复同意厦漳港区合并 整合后统称”厦门港”,[EB/OL]. [2012-12-25].http://news.xmnn.cn/xmxw/201012/t20101207_1642006.htm.
116 自北向南依次是环渤海地区港口群、长江三角洲地区港口群、东南沿海地区港口群、珠江三角洲地区港口群和西南沿海地区港口群.
117 参见《中华人民共和国港口收费规则》第15条.
118 张文显.《法理学》.北京：高等教育出版社,2003；142.
119 沈健,陈敬根.论国际海上货物运输领域中的首要义务.中国海商法年刊,2011,22(2)：85-91.
The "West Cock"[1911] P.208.
"The primary obligation of a tug owner under a towage contract may be described as a duty to provide a tug which, at the time of the contract, or at the commencement of the operations of towage under the contract, is efficient to perform the towage services which the tug undertakes to perform in circumstances reasonably to be expected. The West Cock[1911] P. 208.
122 A Turtle Offshore SA & Anor v Superior Trading Inc.[2008]2 C.L.C.953.
123 The "Enterprise", 228 F.131.
124 "In a contract of towage there is an implied obligation that the tug shall be efficient and properly equipped for the service, from which the owner is relieved only when a breakdown is from causes which could not have been discovered and prevented,"See The Enterprise 228 F.131.
125 "it was an implied term of the contract between a tug and her tow that the former had taken reasonable care to supply a properly equipped leading tug, so as to enable the string of barges attached to her to get safely to their destination" The Enterprise 228 F.131.
126 翟云岭,王阳.默示条款法律问题探究.法学论坛,2004 19(1)：29-34.
127 Lemar Towing Co., Inc.v.Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 352 f.Supp.652,1973 a.m.c.1844.
128 ".....and having so breached implied warranty of seaworthiness, owner was not entitled to recover under the ocean marine policy."Lemar Towing Co., Inc.v.Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 352 f.Supp.652,1973 a.m.c.1844.
129 Black Stallion Enterprises.v.Bay & Ocean Marine Not Reported In f.Supp.2d,2010 WI 1333272 (e.d.La.).
130 "Defendants owed OneBeacon an implied warranty of seaworthiness as to the scheduled vesse"Black Stall Enterprises,v.Bay & Ocean Marine Not Reported In f.Supp.2d,2010 WI 1333272 (e.d.La.).
131 G.吉尔摩C.I.布莱克.海商法..杨召南等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005：186-188.
132 史尚宽.债法各论.北京：中国政法人学出版社,2000：585.
133 沈健,陈敬根论国际海上货物运输领域中的首要义务.中国海商法年刊.2011(2)：86
131 Derby Co. v. A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.,258 F.Supp.206,211 (E.D.La.1966).
135 "Courts have found that there is an "implied warranty of seaworthiness" in towage contracts, and that absent "an express, plain, unequivocal waiver of seaworthiness, [parties] cannot be relieved of full liability for all loss occasioned by the unseaworthiness of [their vessels]." Derby Co. v. A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc..258 F.Supp. 206,211 (E.D.La.1966).
136 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,1955,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,99 L.Ed.911.
137 "The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Black, held that towage contract provision exempting towboat owner from liability for negligence was invalid."Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,1955,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,99 L.Ed.911.
138 a.l. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.v.Derby Company 399 f 2d 304,305 (5th Cir.1968).
139 "The Court of Appeals held that absent plainly unambiguous language, a general exculpatory clause cannot be construed to mean that it relieves a shipowner of obligation of furnishing a seaworthy vessel."a.l. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.v.Derby Company 399 f.2d 304,305 (5th Cir.1968).
140 Elliott Steam Tuf Co.v.The Chester(1922)I2 LI.L.Rep.331 at p.333 Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law.
141 Tebbs v. Baker-Whiteley Towing Co.,407 F.2d 1055,1057 (4th Cir.1969); Curtis Bay Towing Co. v. Southern Lighterage Corp.,200 F.2d 33,34,1952 A.M.C.2034,2036 (4th Cir.1952); Eastern Tar Prods. Corp.,101 F.2d at 32, 1939 A.M.C. at 63; Derby Co., Ltd. v. A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.,258 F.Supp.206,211,1968 A.M.C.1436, 1443 (E.D.La.1966).
142 Southegate v.Eastern Transp.Co.21 g.2d 47(4th Cir.1927).
143 "......because of her failure to properly equip andman and skillfully navigate the barge; and we are further of the opinion that her acts of omission-that is, her unseaworthiness and lack of a sufficient crew and prudent navigator-in the respects mentioned were not merely contributing or concurring faults, but constituted the proximate and efficient cause of the disaster...." So uthegate v.Eastern Transp.Co.21 g.2d 47(4th Cir.1927).
144 Not Reported in F.Supp.,1990 WL 270199 (E.D.Va.),1991 A.M.C.101
145 "The owner of a tow has exclusive control over the condition of its vessel; additionally, the owner of a tow is in the best position to know of the tow's defects and to inform the tug of those defects."Not Reported in F.Supp..1990 WL 270199 (E.D.Va.),1991 A.M.C.101.
146 "tug does not have exclusive control over the tow but only so far as is necessary to enable the tug and those in charge of her to fulfill the engagement." Not Reported in F.Supp.,1990 WL 270199 (E.D.Va.),1991 A.M.C.101.
147 参见《海商法》162条第3款：本条规定仅在海上拖航合同没有约定或者没有不同约定时适用
148 司玉琢.胡正良主编.《中华人民共和国海商法》修改建议稿条文、参考立法例、说明.大连：大连海事大学出版社,2003：402.
149 Simon Rainev.The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rd ed).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:37
150 The "Undaunted" (1886)11 PD 46.
151 "There is an implied obligation in a contract of towage, that the tug shall be efficient and properly equipped for the service, and a proviso in the contract that the owners will not be responsible for the default of the master, does not release them from such implied obligation" The Undaunted(1886)11 PD 46.
152 eg Carver "Carriage of goods by sea "3rd edn:140;Scrutton "Law of charterparties an Bills of lading 1st edn:57.
153 The "marechal Suchet"[1911] p 1.
154 "The oweners of the tug must be taken to have contacted that the tug should be efficient,and that her crew,tackle and equipment should be equal to the work to be accomplished in weather and circumstance reasonably to be expected.and that reasonably skill.care energy and diligence should be exercised in the accomplishment of the work,On the other hand,they did not warrant that the work should be done under all circumstance and all hazard,and the failure to accomplish it should be excused if it werre due to vis major,or to accident not contemplated,and which rendered the doing of the work impossible "The marechal Suchet[1911] p1.
155 The "West Cock" [1911] P 23.
156 "In my opinion it is not sufficient for a tug owner, in an action*216 like the present, to prove that aware of any unfitness or inefficiency, or that it could not be discovered by an ordinary inspection. At the lowest I think his obligation is to prove that the unfitness or inefficiency was not preventable or discoverable by care or skill. But is not the obligation at the outset greater than this? Is it not an obligation which is absolute and which therefore amounts to a warranty? I think it is. t is well established that the obligation under a charterparty or a bill of lading to provide a vessel which is "seaworthy," in the commercial and legal sense, is an absolute one and amounts to a warranty of seaworthiness; and this obligation has been described as "a representation and an engagement-a contract-by the shipowner that the ship... is at the time of its departure reasonably fit for accomplishing the service which the shipowner engages to perform" (perLord Cairns in Steel v. State Line Steamship Co.4); and as "a duty on the part of the person who furnishes or supplies that ship... unless something be stipulated which should prevent it, that the ship shall be fit for its purpose. That is generally expressed by saying that it shall be seaworthy; and I think also in marine contracts, contracts for sea carriage, that is what is properly called a 'warranty,' not merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but that the ship should really be fif"In The West Cock [1911] P 23
157 "An absolute obligation of efficiencyand fitness of the tug is anomalous in the relationship between tug and tow which,as the cases rejected the bailment relationship stress,is one in which the only obligation on the tug is to exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of the contact "Simon Rainey, The Law of Tug and Tow, LLP.2011:39.
158 The Minnehaha(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
159 Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:39.
160 The "Smeilji", [198212 Lloyd's Rep.74,p.79.
161 Owners of the ship'Borvigilant'v Owners of the ship'Romina G'[2003] EWCA Civ 935[2004]1 C.L.C.41.
162 "Whether operator made contract as agent and had authority to do so—Whether tug owner ratified agreement—Extent of indemnity and of proviso for want of reasonable care to make tug seaworthy."Owners of the ship'Borvigilant'v Owners of the ship'Romina G'[2003] EWCA Civ 935[2004] 1 C.L.C.41.
163 The "alle & Evie"24 f At749.
164 "The law doese not require a vessel to be seaworthy to be capable of withstanding every peril;nor that a tug be capable of rescuing her tow in all weather;nor that she shall start only when there is no possibility of danger;nor that the master in an emergency shall infallibly do that which,after the event,others may think would have been best" Thealle&Evie,24 F.at749. Thealle&Evie,24 F.at749.
165 於世成、杨如南、汪淮江.海商法.北京：法律出版社,1997：214-231.
166 "In every contact of towage,the towing company implicitly warrants that the towing vessel is reasonably fit to perform the duties necessary in the weather and conditions ordinarily expected.The tug warrants that it has sufficient power,suitable equipment an tackle,and reasonably competent and skilled crew to complete the work at hand.the tug also warrnats that it is seaworthy". Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:492.
167 The "Minnehaha"(1861) Lush.335:15 Moo.RC. 133.
168 "she eneaees that she will use her best endeavours for that purpose, and will bring to the task competent skill, and such a crew, tackle, and equipment as are reasonably to be expected from a vessel of her class."同上注
169 http://www.ccmt.org.cn/showws.php?id=923.2013-12-02
170 Standard Oil Co. v. United States,1927 AMC 427,431 (9th Cir.1927).
171 "The Ninth Circuit found that the fact... that the towage contract here was entered into was. in view of the knowledge and experience of both the parties thereto, evidence that in the judgment of practical men, versed in the business, the tug was regarded as possessed of sufficient power for the service contemplated."Standard Oil Co. v. United States,1927 AMC 427,431 (9th Cir.1927).
172 Paumier v. Barge (TUG MiCHELE),395 R Supp.1019,1033,1974 AMC 2637,2650-51 (E.D. Va.1974).
173 "vessel must be fit for the normal weather conditions ofthe area in which she operates"Paumier v. Barge BT 1 (TUG MiCHELE),395 R Supp.1019,1033,1974 AMC 2637,2650-51 (E.D. Va.1974).
174 United States v. Le Beouf Brothers Towing Co.,621 F.2d 787,789-90 (5th Cir.1980).
175 Cargill, Inc. Plaintiff v.C & P Towing Co Not Reported in F.Supp.,1990 WL 270199 (E.D.Va.),1991 A.M.C. 101.
176 "Courts have defined seaworthiness of the tow to include the requirements that the tow must be structurally sound and that the tow must be in the proper state of repair."同上注.
177 威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：173.
178 见英国的The Undaunted(1886)11 PD 46以及The West Cock [1911] P 23案;威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005：173.
179 The "United Servie"(1883)8 P.D.569P.D.3.
180 "On entering into the contract in this case the defendants impliedly warranted that the tug was fit to commence and conclude the towage'The United Serviee(1883)8 P.D.569P.D.3.
181 中国船级社《海上拖航指南》(2011)GD-022012：20.
182 Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States,584 F.2d 1151,1155 (2d Cir.1978).
183 "the general rule is that the vessel must be staunch, strong, well equipped for the intended voyage and manned by a competent and skillful master of sound judgment and discretion."Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States,584 F.2d 1151, 1155(2d Cir.1978).
184 Lemar Towing Co., Inc.v.Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 352 f.Supp.652,1973 a.m.c.1844.
185 "The District Court, Boyle, J., held that crew of tug, and particularly its captain, was shown by the evidence to be incompetent at commencement of voyage, thus rendering the tugunseaworthy at that and subsequent times."Lemar Towing Co., Inc.v.Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 352 f.Supp.652,1973 a.m.c.1844.
186 中国船级社《海上拖航指南》(2011)GD-022012：20.
187 The Complaint Of Sea Wolf Marine Towing And Transportation, Inc., as Owner of the Tug Sea Wolf for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.Not Reported in F.Supp.2d,2007 WL 3340931 (S.D.N.Y.),2008 A.M.C. 131.
188 "Competence of a ship's crew depends upon several factors, including" (1)whether the captain, pilot, and navigator are licensed;(2)whether theyhave satisfactory safety records; (3) whether they are familiar with thevessel and the waters on which it travels; and (4) whether they areadequately trained."Not Reported in F.Supp.2d,2007 WL 3340931 (S.D.N.Y.),2008 A.M.C.131.
189 权赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001(11)：8.
190 http://www.lawyee.org/Case/Case_Display.asp?RID=6105.2014-01-03
191 郁志轰.美国海商法.杭州：杭州大学出版社.1996：162.
192 The "West Cock"[1911] P.208.
193 "The tug should be efficient, and that her crew, tackle, and equipment should be equal to the work to be accomplished in weather and circumstances reasonably to be expected,.In my opinion it is not sufficient for a tug owner, in an action like the present, to prove that he was not aware of any unfitness or inefficiency, or that it could not be discovered by an ordinary inspection. At the lowest I think his obligation is to prove that the unfitness or inefficiency was not preventable or discoverable by care or skill." The West Cock[1911] P.208.
194 Paueson.Chandler & Stephen Ltd v. The Senator Jackson[1969]D. L. R 166转引自雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008(2)：18
195 Doherty v. Pennsylvania R.Co.269 f.959(2d Cir.1920).
196 "Evidence that a tug, in mooring barges, disregarded Weather Bureau storm signals, and was dilatory in furnishing assistance to the barges, etc., held to establish the tug's negligence, rendering it liable for injuries sustained by the barges pounding against each other."Doherty v. Pennsylvania R.Co.269 f.959(2d Cir.1920)
198 Central Marine Service INC. Allstate Insurance Company Empolyers Casualty Company v.Gulf Flect Marine Not Reported in F.Supp.,1983 WL 611 (E.D.La.),1984 A.M.C.1019.
199 "Gulf Fleet has made no satisfactory explanation or reasonable excuse for the damage other than negligence. When the weather reports, the vessel's log and the testimony of Captain Smith are compared. the inference is clear that he either ignored the marine weather forecasts of severe weather and sea conditions, or completely disregarded them for he made no advance preparations to avoid the peril of the severe weather. On the contrary his navigation allowed the barge to be exposed to continued pounding of heavy seas. By his own admission he had no concern for the safety of the barge. He expected it to take whatever seas were encountered."Not Reported in F.Supp.,1983 WL 611 (E.D.La.),1984 A.M.C.1019.
200 http://shhsfy.gov.cn/hsinfoplat/platformData/infoplat/pub/hsfyintel 32/docs/200708/d 199569.html 2014-01-04
201 中国船级社《海上拖航指南》(2011)GD-022012：20.
202 "Courts have defined seaworthiness of the tow to include the requirements that the tow must be structurally sound and that the tow must be in the proper state of repair"Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.,373 U.S.206,213 (1963); Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. v. Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc.,522 F.Supp.842,848 (E.D.Mo.1981); Shebby Dredging Co., Inc. v. Smith Bros., Inc.,469 F.Supp.1279,1284 (D.Md.1979).
203 权赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001(11)：11.
204 Z.R. Baldwin, ETC.6 F.Supp.935,1934 A.M.C.444.
205 "Tugs held not liable for partial loss of barge and cargo where captain and helper of barge did not giv tugs that patch stopping leak in barge came off.....I can see no reason for criticizing the navigation of the tugs by men of long experience, who thought that the tow was properly made up. It seems clear to me that no liability can rest on the tugs for anything that happened after the patch came off, as due diligence on the part of the captain and his helper of the Baldwin required the giving of immediate notice to the tugs which would have given them an opportunity to put a siphon." Z.R. Baldwin, ETC.6 F.Supp.935,1934 A.M.C.444.
206 Champion International Corporation v.s.s. Lash Pacifico, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc.569 f.Supp.1557,1984 A.M.C.444.
207 "Its outer shell was not only severely rusted, which to an extent is normal for such barges, but was also shown to have holes in it a considerable time before the accident, which appear not to have been repaired.....Barge owner was liable to consignee of hardwood destroyed by water when barge sank for value of hardwood where barge had not been properly maintained and due diligence had not been exercised by owner to make barge seaworthy in that test to determine whether outerskin had been breached was not properly performed and hatches were not sufficiently checked for water tightness."Champion International Corporation v.s.s. Lash Pacifico, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc.569 F.Supp.1557,1984 A.M.C.444.
208 Southegate v.Eastern Transp.Co.21 g.2d 47(4th Cir.1927).
209 "The Haggett, at the time of anchoring her, had on board only her master and his wife and a small child,Haggett was concerned- was her unseaworthiness, and that she was not properly equipped and manned for the service required." So uthegate v.Eastern Transp.Co.21 g.2d 47(4th Cir.1927).
210 http://china.findlaw.cn/hshs/haishihaishangzhishi/hsth/459_2.html.2014-11-23
211 Nat g. Harrison Overseas Corporation v.American Tug Titan Etc.516 f.2d 89,1975 a.m.c.2257.
212 "...evidence supported finding that capsizing of barge was due to concurrent causes of impr unseaworthiness. Tug owner is not responsible for proper stowage of cargo on barge, for honest error of judgment on part of tug's master, or for nonapparent unseaworthiness of barge" Nat g. Harrison Overseas Corporation v. American Tug Titan Etc.516 f.2d 89,1975 a.m.c.2257.
213 Complaint of STEUART TRANSPORTATION COMPANY as Owner of the TANK BARGE STC 101 for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability 435 F Supp.798,798,1978 AMC 1906,1906 (E.D. Va.1977), aff d,596 F.2d 609,1979 AMC 1187 (4th Cir.1979).
214 "Any inspection of a tow that a tug might undertake does not supersede the absolute warranty of seaworthiness of the tow." Cargill v. C & P Towing Co.,1991 AMC 101,112-13 (E.D. Va.1990) (citing Schuykill Transp. Co. v. Banks,152 F.2d 405,407,1945 AMC 1500,1504 (3d Cir.1945);Newtown Creek Coal & Coke Co. v. Barge Maurice r.,1933 Amc 273,280-81(e.d.n.y.1932)), Affd Without Opinion,943 f2d 48,1992 Amc 392 (4th Cir. 1991).
215 找法网.新加坡郭资源私人有限公司诉中国太保杭州分公司投保船舶在拖带中漂失产生的救助费用赔付案http://china.findlaw.cn/info/case/jdal/34843.html,2014-01-28.
216 於世成、杨如南、汪淮江.海商法.北京：法律出版社,1997：214.
217 赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001(11)：9.
218 於世成,杨如南,汪淮江.海商法.北京：法律出版社,1997：216.
219 Z.R. Baldwin, ETC.6 F.Supp.935,1934 A.M.C.444.
220 "The mere fact that the Baldwin was damaged is not sufficient to render the tug liable, as negligence on the part of the tug must be shown, and the burden rested on the libelant to prove that the damage complained of resulted from the specific acts of negligence alleged."Z.R. Baldwin, ETC.6 F.Supp.935,1934 A.M.C.444.
221 King Fisher Marine Serv. Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet724 F.2d 1181,1984 A.M.C.1769.
222 King Fisher Marine Serv. Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet, is determined through a shifting of the burden of proof. When a tow "sinks in calm waters for no immediatelyascertainable cause... in the absence of proof that the barge was improperlyhandled, the vessel's sinking is presumed to be a direct result of her Unseaworthiness..
223 Boskalis Westminster International v.Island Maritime, F.Supp.2d,2012 WL 9189889 (S.D.Fla
224 喻志耀.合同法的归责原则探讨—兼论我国《合同法》的归责原则.江苏大学学报(社会科学版),2002(1)：50-56.
225 《海商法》第162条。
226 曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001：72-78.
227 屈茂辉.论民法上的注意义务.北方法学,2007(1)：22-34.
228 张新宝.中国侵权行为法(第二版).北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998：137.
229 程啸.侵权责任法.北京：法律出版社,2011：205.
230 《1982年商品和服务提供法》第13条规定"In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill."
231 The "Julia" (1861) Lush 224; 14 Moo PC 210.
232 The "Minnehaha "(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
233 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rd ed).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:32.
234 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:32.
235 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:34.
236 Mandaraka-Sheppard, Alexandra. Modern Admiralty Law:With Risk Management Aspects. Routledge Cavendish.2001:705.
237 Terrell v. Mabie Todd & Co. Ltd (1952) 69 RPC 234.
238 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:33.
239 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:34.
240 Mandaraka-Sheppard, Alexandra. Modern Admiralty Law:With Risk Management Aspects. Routledge Cavendish, 2001:779-780.
241 Slaughter and May. Best endeavours v. reasonable endeavours, what do they mean? http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/39130/best endeavours v reasonable endeavours june 2007.pdf:Dillon Eustace.Best Endeavours. http://www.lega1500.com/assets/firmdevs/dilll 1037/aaa.pdf.
242 "It is mutually agreed between the party stated in Box 2 (hereinafter called 'the Tug owner') and the party stated ii Box 3 (hereinafter called 'the Hirer') that the Tug owner shall, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement which consists of PART I including additional clauses, if any agreed and stated in Box 41, PART II and Annex A. use its best endeavours to perform the towage or other service(s) as set out herein."
243 Simon Rainev. The Law of Tue and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:104.
244 CPC Group v. Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010] EWHC 1535 (Ch).
245 Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:
246 Stevens v. the white city,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71 (1932).
247 Southgate v. Eastern Transp. Co.,21 F 2d 47,49,1927 AMC 1295,1298 (4th Cir.1927).
248 Sweeney, Joseph C. Collisions Involving Tugs and Tows. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):581.
249 Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:34.
250 Eastern Tar Prods. v. Chesapeake Oil Transp. Co.,101 E2d 30,33,1939 AMC.59,63 (4th Cir.1939).
251 Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.350 U.S.124,76 S.Ct.232 U.S.1956.
252 参见the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Section 5.
253 威廉姆台特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等,译.北京：法律出版社,2005：162.
254 规则扩展的过程见Davey, Philip N. "Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States." Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995): 475.
255 周友军.侵权法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2011：312-317.
256 规则扩展的过程见Davey, Philip N. "Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States," Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995): 475.
257 Fairmont Shipping Corp. v. Chevron International Oil Co.,511 F2d 1252,1259-60,1975 AMC 261,270-71 (2d Cir. 1975).
258 威廉姆·台特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等,译.北京：法律出版社,2005：165.
259 McDermott Inc.v.Amclyde.1997 AMC 692.pp.697-698(E.I).La.1996
260 McAlister,Lim.Procs.,2000 AMC 2164,pp.2177-2178(E.D.Va.2000).
261 Thomas J. Schoenbaum.Admiralty and Maritime Law [DB/OL],Fourth Edition. Westlaw international,2004:§ 12-4.
262 Philip N. Davey. The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
263 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71 (1932)承拖方和被拖方之间损害赔偿的性质见第四章分析。
264 Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
265 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71 (1932).
266 程啸.侵权责任法.北京：法律出版社,2011：206-211.
267 The Minnehaha(1861)Lush 335,15 Moo PC133.
268 Stevens v.The White City,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71(1932).
269 胡正良,韩立新.海事法(修订本).北京：北京大学出版社：56.
270 郭战普.试论良好船艺在船舶避让中的作用.天津航海,2006(3)：3-5.
271 见The Julia(1861)14 Moo PC 210,Kingsdown勋爵于第230页所述。
272 Simon Rainev.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded)London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:56.
273 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded)London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:33.
274 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71 (1932).
275 威廉姆·台特雷.国际海商法.张永坚,译.北京：法律出版社,2005：147-178.台特雷教授在该书第五章拖航中分析比较了不同国家的拖航法律制度,其中便包括注意义务的标准。其中除英、美外还包括法国和加拿大对注意义务标准的认定,均为“合理”标准。本文不再赘述。
276 杨圣坤.合同法上的默示条款制度研究.北方法学,2010(2)：132-142,
277 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded) London:Informa Law & Finance,2011.50(2.52),53 (2.53)
278 Thomas J. Schoenbaum.Admiralty and Maritime Law [DB/OL],Fourth Edition. Westlaw international,2004:§ 12-3.
279 RTC No.20 Corp. v. Tug Bronx,1981 AMC 2465 (S.D.N.Y.1981)(拖船因在磁罗盘失去功能的情况下试图在恶劣天气进入海湾而被判定有过错).
280 The Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States,584 F.2d 1151,1978 AMC 1786 (2d Cir.1978)(拖船所有人没能告知一引航员另一引航员对这一区域不熟悉的信息,并且拖船所有人还没委派船长或要求瞭望,这被认为有过失).
281 Kenny MarineTowing, Inc. v. M/V John R. Rice,583 F.Supp.1196 (E.D.La.1984); Mid-America Transportation Co. v. Gladders Towing Co.,492 F.Supp.475 (E.D.Mo.1980); Massman Construction Co. v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.,462 F.Supp.1362,1980 AMC 1164 (W.D.Mo.1979).
282 拖船检查被拖船的义务取决于被拖船的状态与天气状况。 Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. v. Flowers Transp. Inc.,538 F.Supp.65 (E.D.Mo.1982)(在普通条件下的一般的四处走动[walk-around]式的检查是足够的,但在冰雪堆积的条件是是不充足的。)；Aiple Towing Co., Inc. v. M/V Lynne E. Quinn,534 F.Supp.409,411,1982 AMC 1869 (E.D.La.1982)(“谨慎的船艺要求拖船应进行被拖船上检修孔的检查,以确保驶向公海时的安全,特别是在能够与其到恶劣气候的情况下。”)Complaint of J.E. Brenneman Co.,782 F.Supp.1021 (E.D.Pa.1992)(本案中拖船没能合理地检查被拖船,对触碰有过失。拖带中的拖船有可能因没有恶劣天气的报告而负责)。
283 Dwyer Lighterage Inc. v. Christie Scow Corp.,96 F.Supp.900,1951 AMC 946 (E.D.N.Y.1951); A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Porto Rico Lighterage Co.,323 F.Supp.27,1970 AMC 2152 (E.D.La.1970), affirmed 438 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1971); The Pillsbury Co. v. Delta Boat & Barge Rental,1979 AMC 1221 (E.D.La.1978). Marport, Inc. v. Stabbert and Assoc., Inc.,771 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir.1985).
284 McDonough Marine Service, Inc. v. M/V Royal Street,465 F.Supp.928,1982 AMC 2701 (E.D.La.1979), affirmed 608 F.2d 203 (5th Cir.1979).(在本案中法院判决允许被拖船进水过多,以至于被拖船发生损害,拖船范有过错。拖船本可以在一开始注意到驳船倾斜的时候,对驳船进行抽水或使其冲滩搁浅)；King Fisher Marine Service, Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet,724 F.2d 1181,1984 AMC 1769 (5th Cir.1984), rehearing denied 729 F.2d 315 (5th Cir.1984)(拖船知道检修孔打开并且驳船表面有裂缝,但仍高速前进,驶入深水区,并且没有适当地将聚光灯照向被拖船,拖船有过错); Radcliff Materials Inc.v. M/V Rayco,1979 AMC 1362 (E.D.La.1979)(拖船在被拖船进水时冲滩有迟延,并且船上没有充足的抽水设备,拖船有过错)；The Pillsbury Co. v. Delta Boat & Barge Rental Inc.,1979 AMC 1221 (E.D.La.1978)(在被拖船开始沉没时拖船没能查阅地图定位,并且使用就近方便的冲滩区域。)
285 Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. v. Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc.,522 F.Supp.842 (E.D.Mo.1981).
286 Central Marine Service, Inc. v. Gulf Fleet Marine Corp.,1983 WL 611,1984 AMC 1019 (E.D.La.1983).
287 Pasco Marketing, Inc. v. Taylor Towing Service, Inc.,411 F.Supp.808 (E.D.Mo.1976) affirmed in part, reversed in part 554 F.2d 808 (8th Cir.1977).
288 威廉姆·台特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等,译.北京：法律出版社,2005：154.
289 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded)London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:50.
290 The "Cape Colony" (1920) 4 L1 L Rep 116.
291 The "Shanklin" (1932) 43 L1 L Rep 153.
292 The "Lagarto "(1923) 17 L1 L Rep 264.
293 The "Clan Colouhoun"[1936]P 153
294 The Harmony v The Northborough(1923)15 LI L Rep 119.
295 The Isca(1886)12 PD 34.
296 The Englishman and The Australia [1894]P 239.
297 The Altair [1897] P 105:The Ratata[1898] AC 513.
298 The Stormcock(1885)5 Asp MLC 470；The Altair[1897]P 105.
299 The Devonshire [1912] P 21 at p.61; SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634.
300 "follow movements of the tug as closely as possible." 见:Bishop, W. Archie. "Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom." Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):507.
301 The "Jane Bacon "(1878) 27 WR 35.
302 Bucknill, Alfred Townsend. The law Relating to Tug and Tow. Stevens and Sons, Limited,1913:p.51.
303 Spaight v Tedcastle (1881) 6 App Cas 217.
304 The Comet (Owners) v The W.H. No.1 (and others) [1911] AC 30.
305 The Minnie Somers v The Francis Batey (1921) 8 L1 L Rep 247.
306 另见The "Valsesia "[1927] P 115 and The Energy (1870) 23 LT 601).
307 The Niobe (1888) 13 PD 55.
308 The Englishman and The Australia [1894] P 239.
309 The Challenge and The Due d'Aumale [1904] P41;affmd [1905] P 198.
310 The "Abaris" (1920) 2 L1 L Rep 411.
311 P. Dougherty Co. v. United States,207 F.2d 626 (3d Cir.1953).
312 Cleary Bros. v. the Dauntless,178 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1949).
313 United States Borax & Chemical Corp. v. McAllister Brothers, Inc.,1981 AMC 2293 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
314 Mosbacher Production Co. v. Louisiana Materials Co.,1981 AMC 1458 (E.D.La.1980).
315 Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Mays Towing Co., Inc.,927 F.2d 1453,1991 AMC 1540 (8th Cir.1991).
316 Tug Thor--S.S. Lindenwood Victory,305 F.Supp.570,1969 AMC 1962 (W.D.Wash.1969).
317 Nat G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. American Tug Titan,516 F.2d 89,1975 AMC 2257 (5th Cir.1975), modified 520 F.2d 1104,1975 AMC 2271 (5th Cir.1975)在不当装载的案件中,被拖船可能基于比较过错从装卸公司得到补偿。Agrico Chemical Co. v. M/V Ben W. Martin,664 F.2d 85,1985 AMC 563 (5th Cir.1981), rehearing denied 669 F.2d 733 (5th Cir.1982).
318 The "Coleraine",179 F.977 (E.D. N.Y.1910).
319 The "Devonian" [1901] P 221.
320 The "St. Patrick "(1930) 35 LI L Rep 231.
321 如青岛海事法院审理的烟台市供销工业总公司与交通部烟台海上救助打捞局案；林贤峻、陈倩萍与海南省临高县昆社航运公司、湛江市水运总公司第三公司、苏开利等,(2002)广海法初字第37号。
322 见上注。
323 徐曦哲.《合同法》对海上拖航合同适用之研究.大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2005：42.
324 张玉卿.国际商事合同通则..北京.中国商务出版社,2005：76
325 徐曦哲.《合同法》对海上拖航合同适用之研究.大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2005：42.
326 "The overriding obligation upon the tug imposed at common law is to stay with the tow and to persevere in the completion of the towage service."见 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:53.
327 Bishop, W. Archie. Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):507.
328 The Minnehaha (1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
329 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded)London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:53.
330 The "Cap Palos", [1921] All ER Rep 249.
331 The "Refrigerant" [1925] P 130.
332 The "Golden Light", The "HM Hayes", The "Annapolis" (1861) Lush 365
333 The "Aboukir"(1905) 21 TLR 200.
334 The "Refrigerant" [1925] P 130.
335 Gamecock Steam Towing Co Ltd v. Trader Navigation Ltd (1937) 59 L1 L Rep 170.
336 "The latest of either of these events will be taken into account, provided the tug is safely clear of the tow.' Mandaraka-Sheppard, Alexandra. Modern Admiralty Law:With Risk Management Aspects. Routledge Cavendish, 2001:765.
337 The Walumba(owner) v.Ausralian Coastal Shipping Commission[1965] 1 Lloyd's Rep 121.
338 Bishop, Archie W. Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):507.
339 The "White Star" (1866) LR 1 A & E 68.
340 The real question is, what the contracting parties are reasonably supposed to have intended by the engagement, and what degree of alteration had they a right to expect.
Gamecock Steam Towing Co Ltd v Trader Navigation Ltd (1937) 59 LI L Rep 170.
342 崔文星.论情事变更原则.河北法学,2013(4)：60-68.
The "Glenmorven" [1913] P 141.
344 The "Minnehaha "(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
345 The "Aboukir" (1905) 21 TLR 200.
346 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:56.
347 The "LC. Potter" (1870) LR 3 A & E 292.
348 ......it is still her duty to remain by the towed vessel for the purpose of rendering her assistance, but that for such assistance she is entitled to salvage reward.
349 The Lady Flora Hastings (1848) 3 W Rob 118
350 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:56.
351 The "Celadon" (1860)14 Moo PC 97;The Ameican And The Syria (1874) LR 6PC127 AT P.132.
352 The "Devonshire" [1912] P 21;SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634.
353 The SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634.
354 The "Lord Bangor" [1898] P 28.
355 见判决第33页.
356 "The weight of the wire rope will draw the tow up to the tug, and if it be a screw there will be risk of fouling the propeller."
"'The "Challenge and Due d'Aumale" [1905] P 198.
358 Simon Rainey.TheLawof Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:526.
359 可见《1972年避碰规则》第18条,The Arthur Gordon (1861) Lush 270, The La Plata (1857) Swa 220.
360 The "Francis Batey "(1921) 811 L Rep247.
361 The "Sinquasi"(1880)5 PD 241 and Spaight v Ted castle(1881)6 App Cas 217.
362 The "Isca"(1886)12PD 34；The Sinquasi(见上注).
363 The "Duke of Manchester"(1846)4.
364 The Western Neptune and The StLouis Express[2010]1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
365 见判决第38段与第39段.
366 见判决第39段.
367 见判决第80段.
368 Thomas Stone (Shipping) Ltd v The Admiralty (The Albion) [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239.
369 The "SS Devonshire" [1912] P 21 (CA).
370 The "Marmion" (1913) 29TLR 646.
371 例如The "Niobe" (1888) 13 PD 55; The Energy (1870) LR 3 A & E 48.
372 例如The "Albion "[1952] 1 Lloyd'sRep 38.
373 例如The "Francis Batey" (1921) 611 L Rep 389.
374 例如The Niobe (1888) 13 PD 55中判决:"the colourful, if antique and dangerous, method of warning the tug by"girting the tug"
375 例如The "Jane Bacon" (1878) 27 WR 35.
376 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:516.
377 Status of multilateral Conventions and instruments in respect of which the International Maritime Organization or itsSecretary-General performs depositary or other http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/Status%20-%202013.pdf
Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:517.
379 The Western Neptune and The St Louis Express [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
380 即是指英国《1996年商船航运规则(遇难信号和避碰)》(The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996),该规则是《1972避碰规则》的国内法化,内容一致。
381 Closest point of approach,雷达术语。
The Western Neptune and The St Louis Express [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
381 The Julia (1861) Lush 224; 14 Moo PC 210."If, in the course of the performance of this contract, any inevitable accident happened to the one without any default on the part of the other, no cause of action could arise."
384 英国The Kite. [1933] P.154 (1933) 46 L1. L. Rep.83美国Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195.201,1932 AMC468,471 (1932).
Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
386 胡正良,韩立新.海事法(修订本).北京：北京大学出版社：53.
387 汪鹏南.论“比例过失原则”.中国海商法年刊,1991：20.
388 The Western Neptune and The St Louis Express [2010]1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
389 Sweeney, Joseph C. Collisions Involving Tugs and Tows. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):581.
390 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海海事大学硕士学位论文,1998：13.
391 Cleary Bros. v. the Dauntless,178 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1949).
392 The Fort George,183 F 731,732-33 (2d Cir.1910), cert, denied,219 U.S.589 (1911);The Johnd v. Rockefeller, 272 F.67,71 (4th Cir.), cert, denied,256 U.S.693 (1921).
393 "The rule is well settled, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, that when the tug supplies the motive power she becomes the dominant mind and the tow is required to follow her directions".可参见Cleary Bros.v.TheDauntless,178 F.2d 72,1950 A.M.C.44法官在判决中明确表示
394 Spentonbush/Red Star Companies v. N.L.R.B.,106 F.3d 484 (2d Cir.1997).
395 The "Fort George",183 F 731,732 (2d Cir.1910), cert, denied,219 U.S.589 (1911).
396 Dow Chem Co. v. Tug Thomas Allen,349 F Supp.1354,1363,1974 AMC 781,792 (E.D. La.1972).
397 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海海事大学硕士学位论文,1998：13.
398 The "Ticonderoga"(1857) Swa 215.
399 The "Sinquasi "(1880) 5 PD 241.
400 The "Niobe" (1888) 13 PD 55.
401 "It is interesting to note that the presumption in the old cases that the tow was in control of the towage, at least in the case of ocean towage, may have arisen because of the poorly regarded status of many tug operators.' Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:48.
402 The "Stormcock" (1885) 5 Asp MLC 470.
403 The "Quickstep" (1890) 15 PD 196.
404 The "Devonian" [1901] P221.
405 SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634.
406 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3med). London:Informa Law & Finance,2011 530.
407 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011: 46-47
408 Panther and the Ericbank. [1957] P143.
409 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v.Coggins and Griffiths, [1947] AC 1 (HL).
410 见判决第147页。
411 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded). London:Informa Law & Finance, 2011:46
412 The "Isca" (1886) 12PD34,见第35页James Hannen P爵士的论述THE "NIOBE",59 L.T.R.257,260 (P. 1888); THE MARY,41 L.T.R.351,352-53 (P.1879).
413 The "Sinquasi" (1880) 5 PD 241.
414 The Adrpatic & The Welungton,30 T.L.R.699,699 (P.1914).
415 The American&Thc Syria,31 T.L.R.42,50 (P.C.1874).
416 The American and The Syria (1874) LR 6 PC 127.
417 The "SS Devonshire"[1912] P 21,见第49页上诉法院法官Fletcher Moulton的论述。
418 如The "Robert Dixon" (1879) 5 PD 54.
419 如The "Stormcock" (1885) 5 Asp MLC 470.
420 如The "Sinquasi" (1880) 5 PD 241.
421 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011: 49
422 The Adriatic and The Wellington (1914) 30 TLR 699.
423 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008：33.
424 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011: 530
Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
426 Tetley, William. Liens for Towage Freight. J. Mar. L.& Com.1984(15):199威廉姆台特雷.国际海商法张水坚.译北京：法律出版社,2005：158.
427 The "Cap Palos", [19211 P.458; The United Service,9 P.D.3 (1884).
428 Stevens v.The White City,285 U.S.195,201-03,1932 AMC 468,472 (1932).
429 Case law also prohibits the tug owner from contracting out of negligence in a towage contract见Philip N. Davey. The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,349 U.S.85,88-90,1955 AMC 899,903-05 (1955).
430 英国The Kite. [1933] P.154 (1933) 46 L1. L. Rep.83;美国Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,201, 1932 AMC 468,471 (1932).
431 Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,201,1932 AMC 468,471 (1932).
432 Hart v. Blakemore,410 F.2d 218 (5th Cir.1969).
433 "the burden of proof is generally on the tow to show negligence, there is a narrow exception within which the courts have applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in effect presuming the tug to have been negligent unless she can explain the incident." Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995: 475.
434 The " Anaconda",164 F.2d 224,227 (4th Cir.1947).
435 There is imposed upon the tug the duty of proving that the proper care was exercised.
436 Thomas J. Schoenbaum.Admiralty and Maritime Law [DB/OL],Fourth Edition. Westlaw international,2004:§ 12-3.
437 Mid-America Transp. Co. v. National Marine Serv., Inc.,497 F.2d 776,1974 AMC 1943 (8th Cir.1974).
438 Bisso v. Waterways Transportation Co.,235 F.2d 741 (5th Cir.1956)
439 However, circumstances may create a strong presumption of negligence. In that event the burden is on the tug to rebut the prima facie case or, at least, to show a reasonable excuse for the accident other than its own negligence.
440 判决中写到Under these circumstances, not present in Soriano or other like cases relied upon by the tug, upon proof of grounding it is the duty of the tug to come forward to establish that she was in the channel and did not hit a known obstruction therein or to furnish other exculpatory explanation (e.g., act of God) for the grounding. In so holding we do no violence to Stevens v. The White City, supra. The burden of proof has not shifted, but the tug i charged with the duty of producing evidence that her fault did not cause the grounding.
441 Sweeney, Joseph C. Collisions Involving Tugs and Tows. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):581.
442 The Francis Batey (1921) 811 L Rep 247.
443 《1995年商船法》第187条(1)Where, by the fault of two or more ships, damage or loss is caused to one or more of those ships, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on board, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each ship was in fault. (2)If, in any such case, having regard to all the circumstances, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally. (3)This section applies to persons other than the owners of a ship who are responsible for the fault of the ships, as well as to the owners of a ship and where, by virtue of any charter or demise, or for any other reason, the owners are not responsible for the navigation and management of the ship, this section applies to the charterers or other persons for the time being so responsible instead of the owners. (4)Nothing in this section shall operate so as to render any ship liable for any loss or damage to which the fault of the ship has not contributed.
444 《1995年商船法》第187条(5)Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of any person under a contract of
carriage or any contract, or shall be construed as imposing any liability upon any person from which he is exempted
by any contract or by any provision of law, or as affecting the right of any person to limit his liability in the manner provided by law.
445 United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.,421 U.S.397,411,1975 AMC 541,552 (1975).
446 Hanover Insurance Co. v. Puerto Rico Lighterage Co.,553 F.2d 728,730,1977 AMC 850,853 (1st Cir.1977).
445 相同的案例可见In re Berkely Curtis Bay Co.,557 F. Supp.335,338-39,1984 AMC 1934,1939 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
448 Smith & Kelly v. Steamship Concordia Tadj,718 F.2d 1022,1029,1984 AMC 409.419(11th Cir.1983).
449 傅廷中.海上拖航的法律问题与实务.世界海运,2000(5)：50-51.
450 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008：27.
451 雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008：58.
452 同上注。
423 见34.2.1,包括雇佣关系条款、补偿条款和互撞免责条款。
454 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded). London:Informa Law & Finance 2011:527-528.
455 The Msc Panther and The Ericbank [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 57 at pp.63-64.
456 It clearly required the combination of contact between the vessels with the fact of the propeller being in motion to bring about the major part of the damage.
457 如 The Miraflores&The Abadesa,[1967] 1 Lloyd's List L. Rep.191,201-03 (H.L.).
458 The Western Neptune and The St Louis Express [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
459 Civil liability(contribution) act 1978.
460 Mandaraka-Sheppard, Alexandra. Modern Admiralty Law:With Risk Management Aspects. Routledge Cavendish,2001:579.792.
461 The "Devonshire" [1912] P 21; SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634
462 The "Drumlanrig", [1911] A. C.16.
463 The "Cairnbahn"[1914] P 25.
464 见判决第32-33页。
465 Mandaraka-Sheppard, Alexandra. Modern Admiralty Law:With Risk Management Aspects. Routledge Cavendish.2001:593.
466Simon Rainey.The Lawof Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3red).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:530.
467 "where a tug and or its tow collide with a third vessel and both tug and tow are to blame, both will be jointly and severally liable." Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:531.
468 Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Arkansas River Co.,271 F.3d 753.2002 AMC 331 (8th Cir.2001);
Sturgis v. Boyer,65 U.S. (24 How.) 110,16 L.Ed.591 (1860); The Civilta,103 U.S. (13 Otto) 699.26 L.Ed.599 (1880); Citadel Shipping Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co.,1983 AMC 1721 (E.D.La.1982).
469 The Civilta,103 U.S. (13 Otto) 699,26 L.Ed.599 (1880).
470 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Progress Marine Inc.,1980 AMC 1637 (E.D.La.1979); Alter Co. v. M/V Miss Sue,536 F.Supp.313,1983 AMC 302 (E.D.La.1982); Canarctic Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Great Lakes Towing Co.,670 F.2d 61 (6th Cir.1982).
471 Cody v. Phil's Towing Co.,247 F.Supp.2d 688,2002 AMC 2542 (W.D.Pa.2002); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Progress Marine, Inc.,1980 AMC 1637 (E.D.La.1979).
472 See G Gilmore and C. Black. The Law of Admiralty.516 (2d ed.1975).转引自 Thomas J. Schoenbaum.Admiralty and Maritime Law [DB/OL],Fourth Edition. Westlaw international,2004:§ 12-6.
473 Sweeney, Joseph C. Collisions Involving Tugs and Tows. Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):581.
474 Ryan Walsh Stevedoring,557 F. Supp. at 460,1983 AMC at 25 17-18.
475 Kinsman Marine Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co.,1975 AMC 837,841 (N.D. Ohio 1975).
476 Montauk Oil Co. v. Tug Laurie And Reinauer,1974 AMC 2382,2386-87(S.D.N.Y.1974).
477 In re Barrett,108 F Supp.710,718-19,1953 AMC 159,171-72 (S.D.N.Y.1952), modified on other grounds,209 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1954).
478 Tug Thomas Allen,349 F. Supp. at 1363,1974 AMC at 792.
479 In re Patton-Tully Transp. Co. (MN FRANK PHPPS),1983 AMC 1288,1299-1300 (E.D. La.1982):Oil Transfer Corp. v. Westchester Ferry Corp.,173 F. Supp.637,640,1959 AMC 485,488 (S.D.N.Y.1958).
480 Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v. Gulf Rcf. Co.,1933 AMC 1086,1087 (E.D.N.Y.1933).
481 Thomas J. Schoenbaum.Admiralty and Maritime Law [DB/OL],Fourth Edition. Westlawinternational.2004:12-6.
482 曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海海事大学硕士学位论文,1998：27.
483 崔建远.免责条款论.中国法学.1991(6)：77.
484 The "Refrigerant" [1925] P 130.
485 Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
486 George Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds Ltd[1983]2 AC. 803
487 《1977不公平条款法》的第2条1款：一个人不能依据任何合同条款,或者依据公式的通知或给某个特定的人通知,来免除或者限制由于疏忽造成的死亡或者人身伤害的责任。
488 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,1955 AMC 899,99 L.Ed.911.
489 Dixilyn Drilling Crop.v.Cresent Towing&Salavage Co.,327U.S.697-698,1963AMC829,P.830(1963)
490 Twenty Grand Offshore v.West India Carrier,492F.2D 679,p.685,1974AMC2254,pp.2261-2262(5 Cir.1974).
491 Boskalis Westminster International v.Island Maritime, F.Supp.2d,2012 WL 9189889 (S.D.Fla.).
492 "Therefore, a breach of the implied or express warranty of seaworthiness would be covered under the indemnification provision. As previously noted, these parties are commercial entities that made a knowing decision as to how to allocate risks. Such an allocation included indemnification for "any liability." including seaworthines breach of contract and negligence."Boskalis Westminster International v.Island Maritime--- F.Supp.2d ----.2012 WI. 9189889 (S.D.Fla.).
493 《海商法》第一百六十二条在海上拖航过程中,承拖方或者被拖方遭受的损失,由一方的过失造成的,有过失的一方应当负赔偿责任；由双方过失造成的,各方按照过失程度的比例负赔偿责任。虽有前款规定,经承拖方证明,被拖方的损失是由于下列原因之一造成的,承拖方不负赔偿责任；(一)拖船船长、船员、引航员或者承拖方的其他受雇人、代理人在驾驶拖船或者管理拖船中的过失;(二)拖船在海上救助或者企图救助人命或者财产时的过失。本条规定仅在海上拖航合同没有约定或者没有不同约定时适用。
494 王利明.合同法研究.北京.中国人民大学出版社,2011：564
495 《民法通则》第4条规定：“民事活动应当遵循自愿、公平、等价有偿、诚实信用原则。”第6条规定：“民事活动必须遵守法律,法律没有规定的,应当遵守国家政策。”第7条规定：“民事活动应当尊重社会公德不得损害社会公共利益,破坏国家经济计划,扰乱社会经济秩序。
496 王利明.合同法研究.北京.中国人民大学出版社,2011：483
497 同上.563
Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,349 U.S.85,75 S.Ct.629,1955 AMC 899,99 L.Ed.911.
499 郁志轰.美国海商法.杭州大学出版社,1996：170.
500 Robertson v. AmazonTug Company[71 Court of Appeal,1881.
501 "Cnleridee.CJ.whoheld that there was an inplied warranty by the defendants that the tug should be reasonably efficient for the purposes of the voyage, but this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal." See Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:43.
502 "Brett L J. in the course of his judgment, said'When there is a specific thing there is no implied contract that it shall be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is hired or is to be used. That is the great distinction between a contract to supply a thing which is to be made and which is not specific, and a contract with regard to a specific thing. In the one case you take the thing as it is, in the other the person who undertakes to supply it is bound to supply a thing reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is made.'" Se Simon Rainy e.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts.2011,p43.
503 Point Anne Quarries v The Tug Mary Francis Whalen (1922) 13 L1 L Rep 40.
504 Fraser & White Ltd v Vernon [1951]2 Lloyd's Rep 175.
505 "McNair J held the contract wsa for the services of two named tugs, FW No.23 and Eclair, and that the claim for breaches of implied warranties as to the tugs failed:as the judge put it, "the short answer to the whole of this claim is that there is no implied warranty or condition or to the fitness of the tugs to do their work'." See Simon Rainy,The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts.2011,p44.
506 The Glenmorven[1913]P 141.
507 Robertson v. AmazonTug Company[7] Court of Appeal,1881.
508 Fraser & White Ltd v. Vernon [1951]2 Llovd's Rep 175.
509 The Glenmorven[1913]P 141.
510 同上注.
511 The Dodd,1927 AMC 427 (9th Cir.)
512 王欣主编.救捞国际标准合同.大连海事大学出版社.2011：136.
513 Smit International Deutschland GmbH v. Josef Mobius Bau-gesellschaft GmbH (judgement 7 June 2001: L.M.L.N.564)
516 The A Turtle [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep.177.
517 Smit International Deutschland GmbH v. Josef Mobius Bau-gesellschaft GmbH (judgement 7 June 2001: L.M.L.N.564)
518 The A Turtle [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep.177.
519 TOWCON2008,第26条喜马拉雅条款据本合同或者任何适用于本合同的成文法或规定或规则对承拖方或被拖方有利的全部除外、免责、抗辩、豁免、责任限制、赔偿、特权和条件等规定或条款,同样适用并且有利于下列人员：(a)拖船或者被拖物的光船承租人、分包人、经营人、船长、高级船员和船员；(b)承拖方或被拖方的所有母公司、子公司、关联公司或与承拖方或被拖方属于同一管理人的公司,以及这些公司的所有董事、高级管理人员、受雇人和代理人：(c)作为拖船或承拖方或被拖方的受雇人、代理人和分包人为他们在本合同范围内履行合同的所有人：承拖方或被拖方应被视为上述所有人员、单位和船舶的代理人或受托人并为其利益行事,但仅限于通过订立介同使有关利益扩大适用于这些人员、单位和船舶。
520 如中国海事仲裁委员会的拖航格式合同,以及UK拖航标准合同的前身Tug Requisition form中也曾明列过喜马拉雅条款。
511 如日本的NIPPONTOW格式合同,以及现行UK标准合同。
522 The Borvigilant and Romina G [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 520.
523 “合同落空”,是指“在合同成立之后,非由于当事人自身的过失,而是由于事后发生的意外情况面使当事人在订约时所谋求的商业目标受到挫折。在这种情况下,对于未履行的合同义务,当事人得予免除责任。这个概念强调的是,意外事件发生后,当事人原先期待的商业目的无法实现的情况下的免责。参见：姜作利.英美法中的“合同落空”制度.政治与法律,1998(3)：76.
524 Abudhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shipping Ltd. [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep.397.
525 同上注.
526 中国涉外商事海事审判网.对运输过程出现的台风是否属不可抗力的理解认定----大连源吉盛粮油有限公司、天安保险股份有限公司揭阳中心支公司诉黄石市万通海运有限公司水路货物运输合同案.访问时间 2013年12月28日.
527 Skandia Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Star Shipping AS,173 F.Supp.2d 1228, S.D.Ala.,2001. April 05,2001 (Approx.27 pages).
528 美国《哈特法》第4条规定：如承运人做到了谨慎处理使船舶适航,则承运人对于驾驶或管理船舶中的过失造成的货物灭失或损坏免责,对于海上或其它通航水域的危险、天灾、公敌行为、货物的固有缺陷、包装不固、依法拘留、托运人过失、海上救助等方面造成的货物灭失或损坏也免责。
529 中国《海商法》第51条规定：在责任期问货物发生的灭失或者损坏是由于下列原因之一造成的,承运人不负赔偿责任：(一)船长、船员、引航员或者承运人的其他受雇人在驾驶船舶或者管理船舶中的过失;(二)火灾,但是由于承运人本人的过失所造成的除外；(三)天灾,海上或者其他可航水域的危险或者意外事故；(四)战争或者武装冲突；(五)政府或者主管部门的行为、检疫限制或者司法扣押；(六)罢工、停工或者劳动受到限制;(七)在海上救助或者企图救助人命或者财产；(八)托运人、货物所有人或者他们的代理人的行为；(九)货物的自然特性或者固有缺陷；(十)货物包装不良或者标志欠缺、不清；(十一)经谨慎处理仍未发现的船舶潜在缺陷；(十二)非由于承运人或者承运人的受雇人、代理人的过失造成的其他原因。承运人依照前款规定免除赔偿责任的,除第(二)项规定的原因外,应当负举证责任。
530 中国《海商法》第162条规定：在海上拖航过程中,承拖方或者被拖方遭受的损失,由一方的过失造成的,
有过失的一方应当负赔偿责任；由双方过失造成的,各方按照过失程度的比例负赔偿责任。虽有前款规定,
经承拖方证明,被拖方的损失是由于下列原因之一造成的,承拖方不负赔偿责任：(一)拖船船长、船员、引
航员或者承拖方的其他受雇人、代理人在驾驶拖船或者管理拖船中的过失；(二)拖船在海上救助或者企图救
助人命或者财产时的过失。本条规定仅在海上拖航合同没有约定或者没有不同约定时适用。
531 River Terminals Corporation v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Company360 U.S.411(79 S.Ct.1210,3 L.Ed.2d 1334).
532 王欣主编.救捞国际标准合同.大连海事大学出版社,2011：134.
533 Davis v Garrett(1830) 6 Bing 716, per Tindal CJ at p.725.
534 Scaramanga v. Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295 (CA).
535 王欣主编.救捞国际标准合同.大连海事大学出版社,2011：133.
536 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts (3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance, 2011:403.
537 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.238.
538 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts (3rded).London:Informa Law & Financ 2011:404.
539 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007,238
540 The "Minnehaha" (1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
541 "But if in the discharge of this task, by sudden violence of wind or waves, or other accidents, the ship in tow is placed in danger, and the towing-vessel incurs risks and performs duties which were not within the scope of her original engagement, she is entitled to additional remuneration for additional services if the ship be saved, and may claim as a salvor, instead of being restricted to the sum stipulated to be paid for mere towage." see The Minnehaha (1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
542 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts (3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance, 2011:410.
543 The "Minnehaha"(1861)15 Moo.P.C.152-155.
544 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts (3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance. 2011:415
54 The "Refrigerant" [1925]P 130.
546 The "Refrigerant" [1925]P 130, at p.140
547 The "Lampas "(1933) 4511 L Rep259.
548 李永军.合同法.北京：法律出版社,2010：432.
540 The "I.C. Potter" (1870) LR 3 A & E292.
The "Star Maria" [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 183.
551 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社.2007：275.
552 The "Dimitrios N. Bogiazides" (1930) 3711 L Rep 27
553 The "Aztecs" (1870) 3 Asp MLC 326.
554 林鹏鸠.论海难救助之概念.大连海事大学学报.1995：90.
555 The Owners of the Sea Tractor v The Owners of the Tramp [2007]2 Lloyd's Rep 363.
556 "I tum now to the question of whether Tramp was in sufficient danger to found a claim for salvage. Whilst the views of the master are of some persuasive influence, the test is essentially an objective one. The vessel must have encountered a situation which would expose it to damage if the service was not rendered, such that no reasonable person in charge of the venture would refuse a salvor's help if it was offered to him upon the condition of paying a salvage award."see Kennedy & Rose, Law of Salvage,6th edn, para.333.
557 The "Pericles"(1863) Br & L 80.
558 The "Trevorian" (1940) 6611 L Rep 45.
559 The "White Star" (1866) LR 1 A & E 68.
560 "The real question is, what are the contracting parties reasonably supposed to have intended by the engagement, and what degree of alteration had they a right to expect" see The White Star (1866) LR I A & E 68.atpp.70-71.
561 Sinclair v Cooper 108 US352.
562 "Such a service, which... rescued the ship from an unforeseen and extraordinary peril, gave the owner, as well as the officers and crew of the towboat, a right to salvage."
563 广州海.上救助打捞局诉钜业远东有限公司海上拖航合同纠纷案广州海事法院(1999)广海法商字第71号。
564 合同履行受挫：在合同的有效期间,如果发生某种事件造成合同的履行成为不可能或不合法,或者已经履行的义务与合同规定的义务在本质上的不同,而事件的发生并不是由于合同当事人的过失,
565 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts,2011:426.
566 The Leon Blum [1915] P 90.
567 "The right conclusion to draw from the authorities, I think, is that where salvage services (which must be voluntary) supervene upon towage services (which are under contract) the two kinds of service cannot co-exist during the same space of time. There must be a moment when the towage service ceases and the salvage service begins; and, if the tug remains at her post of duty, there may come a moment when the special and unexpected danger is over, and then the salvage service would end, and the towage service would be resumed. These moments of time may.be difficult to fix, but have to be, and are, fixed in practice. During the intervening time the towage contract, in so far as the actual work of towing is concerned, is suspended. I prefer the word suspended' to some of the other words which have been used, such as 'superseded','vacated', abandoned',&c."see The Leon Blum(1915)P 90; (1915)P 290 (CA).
568 The Madras [1898] P 90.
569 "(in the case of) an indivisible contract which cannot be fulfilled owing to circumstances for which neither party is to blame... I think there could be no question that the law holds neither party liable to fulfill that contract, or liable to consequences for not fulfilling it... Subject, of course, to this, that if there is a new contract to be implied by the acts of the parties, that gives rise to new rights." see The Madras [1898] P 90, where at p.94.
570 李先波.英美合同解除制度研究.北京.北京大学出版社,2008：19
571 The Massalia [1961] 2 QB 278.
Wells v. Owners of Gas Float Whitton (1879) No.2.
573 The "Rilland"[1979]1 Lloyd's Rep 455.
574 The Charles Adolphe(1856) Swab 153.
575 "cannot by possibility be compared to an ordinary towage service".
576 The Waterloo (1820) 2 Dods 433 at pp.435-436.
577 "... where the exemption is claimed from a right otherwise universally allowed, and highly favoured in law, for the protection of those who are subjected to it... it is for their benefit that it exists under that favour of the law. It is what the law calls jus liquidissimum, the cleanest right that they who have saved lives and property at sea should be rewarded for such salutary exertions; and those who say that they are not bound to reward ought to prove their exemption in very definite terms, and by arguments of irresistible cogency.",see The Waterloo (1820) 2 Dods 433 at pp.435-436.
578 Clan Steam Trawling Co Ltd v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd 1908 SC 651 at p.655.
579 "Such an agreement might conceivably be objected to as being contrary to public policy. But, assuming its validity, I think it must be clear, from the agreement, that the rendering of assistance to a vessel in distress shall not found a claim for remuneration. The right to obtain salvage remuneration is one very much favoured in law. and therefore cannot be excluded unless by express words or by very clear implication from the language used."see Clan Steam Trawling Co Ltd v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd 1908 SC 651 at p.655.
580 see Fisher v The Oceanic Grandeur[1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep 396, per Stephen J at p.407.
581 Polskie Okretowe v. Rallo Vito & C Snc and Anothe [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep.384.
582 "It is clearly understood that there is to be no claim for salvage by the tugowner, or the officers or crew of the tug or any other persons onboard the tug and/or any other party associated with the tugowner against the hirer or the tow or cargo, bunkers, stores or freight onboard the tow and the tugowner hereby indemnifies the hirer and the owners of all the above property against such claims for salvage." see olskie Okretowe v. Rallo Vito & C Snc and Anothe [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep.384.
583 The "Homewood"(1928)3111 L Rep 336.
584 The "Texaco Southampton"[1983]]L]oyd's Rep 94.
585 Nunley v.The Dauntless 863 F.2d.1190(1989).
586 The Minnehaha(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
587 The Minnehaha(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133 at p.155.
588 The Minnehaha(1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133.
58y "If the danger from which the ship has been rescued is attributable to the fault of the tug if the tup, whether by wilful misconduct, or by negligence, or by the want of that reasonable skill or equipments which are implied in the towage contract, has occasioned or materially contributed to the danger, we can have no hesitation in stating our opinion that she can have no claim to salvage. She can never be permitted to profit by her own wrong or default."see The Minnehaha (1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133 at p.155.
590 The Cargo ex Capella (1867) LR 1 A & E 356.
591 "... I look to the principle which ought to govem the case. In my mind, the principle is this, that no man can profit by his own wrong. This is a rule founded injustice and equity... The asserted salvors were the original wrongdoers it was by their fault that the property was placed in jeopardy. The rule would bar any claim by them for services rendered to the other ship which was a co-delinquent in the collision... "see The Cargo ex Capella (1867) LR 1 A & E 356 at p.357.
592 The Due d'Aumale (No.2) [1904] P 60.
593 "Both on principle and as a matter of good policy... it would not be desirable to encourage acrew to recover a salvage reward in such cases of tug and tow where the master ot the tug nas-been one or the causes of the disaster from which the ship to which salvage services has been rendered is rescued... it would be bad policy to encourage sailors, as it were, to hope and expect that their master might get the ship he was towing into danger, so that they would have to render services for which they could recover."see The Due d'Aumale (No.2) [1904] P 60 at pp.74-75.
594 The Beaverford v The Kafiristan [1938] AC 136.
595 "that there is no principle of law which prevents a ship which has rendered a salvage service from obtaining a salvage award simply on the ground that she caused or, at least, was partly responsible for the damage which gave rise to the need for the salvage service.Accordingly, a tug which, by its own misconduct, gives rise to a danger which puts the tow in need of a salvage service which, in the final event, is rendered by that same tug, is not necessarily deprived of the opportunity to claim a salvage award." See The Glengaber (1872) LR 3 A & E 534.
596 The Susan v. Luckenbach [1951] P 197 (CA).
597 The Glengaber (1872) LR 3 A & E 534.
598 "There does not seem to be any reason in equity why the salved vessel... should not pay the appropriate salvage remuneration merely because the salving vessel belongs to the same owners as the other colliding vessel. That fact seems to be irrelevant so far as concerns the usefulness and meritorious character of the actual services rendered. It is not less true when the possibility of the other colliding vessel being held to blame in whole or in part is taken into account."
599 The Beaverford v The Kafiristan [19381 AC 136.
600 The Homely Fed. Cas. No.661 (1876).
601 Hendry Corp v Aircraft Rescue Vessels 113 F. Supp.198 (1953).
602 司玉琢主编.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社.2010.11：366.
603 司玉琢主编.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社.2010.11：366.
604 邬先江.陈海波.海事赔偿责任限制制度的法理基础及其历史嬗变.浙江社会科学,2010(11)：18-22.
605 邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究.大连：大连海事大学博士学位论文,2010(3)：137.
606 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims,1976 (London,19 November 1976)[EB/OL][2013-12-10].
http://www. admiraltylawguide.com/conven/limitation 1976.html.
607 何丽新,谢美山.海事赔偿责任限制研究.厦门：厦门大学出版社.2008：21.
608 傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社.2011.01：22.
609 Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Financc,2011:537."This extends the right to limit, for example, to small non sea-going vessels, such as small river or harbour tugs."
610 Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:537. "......any structure (whether completed or not or in the course of completion) launched and intended for use in navigation as a ship or part of a ship "
611 Senior Courts Act 1981,24 Supplementary provisions as to Admiralty jurisdiction[EB/OL].[2013-12-16]. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/24. 24(1)"ship" includes any description of vessel used in navigation and (except in the definition of "port" in section 22(2) and in subsection (2)(c) of this section) includes, subject to section 2(3) of the M1 Hovercraft Act 1968. a hovercraft; "towage" and "pilotage", in relation to an aircraft, mean towage and pilotage while the aircraft is water-borne.
612 "One might possibly take the position of the gentleman who dealt with the elephant by saying he could not define an elephant but he knew what it was when he saw one and it may be that this is the foundation of the learned judge's judgment, that he cannot define 'ship or vessel'but he knows this thing is not a ship or vessel." Merchants Marine Insurance Co v North of England P & I (1926) 23 Com Cas 165.
613 "... the concept of structure,whether it be made of wood, steel or fiberglass, which by reason of its concave shape provides buoyancy for the carriage of persons or goods." Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep163.
614 "...a hollow receptacle for carrying goods or people... it includes every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water." Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep163
615 R v Goodwin [2006]1 Lloyd's Rep 432.
616 "After considering these and other authorities, we have come to the conclusion that for a vessel to be 'used in navigation'under the Merchant Shipping Acts it is not a necessary requirement that it should be used in transporting persons or property by water to an intended destination, although this may well have been what navigation usually involved when the early Merchant Shipping. Acts were enacted. What is critical in the present case is, however, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts definition of ship, navigation is'the planned or ordered movement from one place to another' or whether it can extend to'messing about in boats'involving no journey at all." R v Goodwin [2006]1 Lloyd's Rep 432
617 Simon Rainey.TheLaw of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded)London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:573.
618 R. v Carrick District Council, ex p. Prankerd (The Winnie Rigg) [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 675.
619 Targe Towing Ltd v The Von Rocks [199812 Lloyd's Rep 198.
620 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:574. the Irish Supreme Court had to consider whether a backhoe dredger barge was a ship. The barge had no bow, no stern, no means of self-propulsion and no wheelhouse. It could only be moved by dismantling"legs" and being extensively prepared for towage The Supreme Court held that nevertheless the barge was a "ship" and was "used for navigation " as it was a structure designed and constructed for the purposes of carrying out specific activities on the water, was capable of movement on the water and spent periods of time being moved at sea under tow. The absence of self-propulsion was not necessary decisive.
621 Global Marine Drilling Co v Triton Holdings Ltd (The Sovereign Explorer) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 60.
622 傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社.2011.01：22.
523 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:537."This extends the right to limit, for example, to small non sea-going vessels, such as small river or harbour tugs."
624 Senior Courts Act 1981,24 Supplementary provisions as to Admiralty jurisdiction[EB/OL].[2013-12-16]. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/24. 24(1)"ship" includes any description of vessel used in navigation and (except in the definition of "port" in section 22(2) and in subsection (2)(c) of this section) includes, subject to section 2(3) of the M1Hovercraft Act 1968. a hovercraft; "towage" and "pilotage", in relation to an aircraft, mean towage and pilotage while the aircraft is water-borne.
625 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:537. "......any structure (whether completed or not or in the course of completion) launched and intended for use in navigation as a ship or part of a ship "
626 46 USC section 183(a),188.
627 46 USC section 183(b)(f).
628 The "Ran"; The "Graygarth" [1922] P 80
629 The "Ran";The "Graygarth "[1922] P 20
630 "The question of the liability of tug and tow always raises the issue as to whether the person son the tug where the tug is negligent were the servants of the owners of the tow." The Ran;The Graygarth [1922] P 86.
631 "The issue of whether or not a towage convoy is to be treated as one unit for limitation purposes is usually referred to in the books and cases as 'the flotilla issue'. The issue may be shortly stated:are the tonnages of tug and tow to be treated as one aggregate tonnage for limitation purposes and, if so, in what circumstances?" Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:538.
632 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:539.
633 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:540.
634"The Freden (1950) 8311 L Rep427, in which The Harlow was applied (tug and three barges in common ownership all negligently navigated; one barge collided with a vessel; it was held that the tonnage of the tug and of that barge were to be taken but not the tonnage of the other barges which did not cause or contribute to the damage)." The Freden (1950) 8311 L Rep 427. Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London: Informa Law & Finance,2011:540.
635 The "Bramley Moore" [1964] P 200;[1963] 2 Lloyd' Rep 429(CA).
635 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:541.
637 Simon Rainey.The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Financc.2011:541.
538 "The issue is on what basis the owners of a tug and tow can limit their liability for collision damage where there was negligence for which they are liable on the part of the person in charge of the tug but no negligence on the part of anyone on the tow. More particularly the issue is whether the present case, although one of common ownership of tug and tow, is covered by the decision... in a case called The Bramlev Moore." London Dredging Co vGreater London Council (The Sir Joseph Rawlinson) [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437.
639 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance.2011:544.
640 "The plaintiffs' cause of action against Transporter III arises out of negligent acts or omissions which occurred when making the arrangements for the towage of the barge before she left Rotterdam. A claim for damages would have been successful if a servant of the barge owners was guilty of those acts or omissions regardless of who owned the tug. The owners of the barge are not liable to damages beyond an amount calculated by reference to her tonnage. namely f 62,078. I can see no reason why that liability should be limited to a lesser sum because the owners of that barge also own the tug." The Smjeli [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 80-81.
641 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:547
642 Simon Rainey. The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts(3rded).London:Informa Law & Finance,2011:545.
643 Under the flotilla doctrine, all vessels engaged in a common venture should be considered one vessel for limitation purposes, and therefore, the value of all vessels engaged in the venture must be surrendered to determine the value of the limitation fund.参见 In re Waterman S.S. Corp.,794 F. Supp.601,1992 AMC 2658 (E.D. La. 1992);还可参见In re Midland Enters., Inc.,296 F. Supp.1356,1970 AMC 2437 (S.D. Ohio 1968).
644 The Limitation of Liability Act was originally passed "to encourage ship-building and to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of industry." Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.,531 U.S.438,446,2001 AMC 913, 918 (2001) (citing Norwich Co. v. Wright,80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 104,121,1998 AMC 2061,2071 (1871)).
645 Shannon A. Thornhill. The Flotilla Doctrine:Is Liverpool Simply Outdated Or Is It Time to Abandon Ship? Tulane Maritime Law Journal. Winter 2008:265.
646 Sec In re Waterman,794 F. Supp.601,1992 AMC 2658.
647 251 U.S.48(1919).另参见郁志轰.美国海商法.杭州：杭州大学出版社：173
648 Rev.St. §§ 4283-4285,46 U.S.C.A.§§183-185.
649 251 U.S.48,40 S.Ct.66,64 L.Ed.130.
650 The James Gray v. The John Fraser,21 How.184,16 L. Ed.106; The J. P. Donaldson,167 U. S.599,603,604, 17 Sup. Ct.951,42 L. Ed.292; The Eugene F. Moran,212 U. S.466,474,475,29 Sup. Ct.339,53 L. Ed.600; Union Steamship Co. v. Owners of the Aracan, L, R.6 P. C. 127以及 The John G. Stevens,170 U. S.113,123,18 Sup. Ct.544,42 L. Ed.969; The W. G. Mason,142 Fed.913,917,74 C. C. A.83; The Eugene F. Moran,212 U. S. 466,475,29 Sup. Ct.339,53 L. Ed.600; L. R.6 P. C.127,133.
651251 U.S.48,40 S.Ct.66,64 L.Ed.130. There cases show that for the purposes of liability the passive instrument of the harm does not become one with the actively responsible vessel by being attached to it.
652251 U.S.48,40 S.Ct.66,64 L.Ed.130.
653 Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,1927 AMC 398 (1927).
654 Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.326,1927 AMC 398 (1927).
655 Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.327-328,1927 AMC 398 (1927).
656 "[T]hc use of the tug must be read into that contract as an indispensable factor in the performance of its obligations.") Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.329,1927 AMC 399.
657 Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.330,1927 AMC 400.
658 "The distinction seems plain. There the libel was for an injury to a ship in no way related to the flotilla. It was a pure tort--no contractual obligations were involved; and the simple inquiry was, What constituted the "offending vessel?" Here we must ask, What constituted the vessel by which the contract of transportation was to be effected? a very different question." Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U.S.332,1927 AMC 402.
659 67 F.2d 548,1933 AMC 1621 (2d Cir.1933).
660 67 F.2d 549,1933 AMC 1621 (2d Cir.1933).
661 67 F.2d 549,1933 AMC 1621 (2d Cir.1933).
662 ("[t]he barge was being used upon the same business as the dredge") 67 F.2d 549,1933 AMC 1622(2d Cir. 1933).
663 "it is possible to regard an 'entire flotilla as one vessel for the purposes of the undertaking in which the common owner was engaged," 67 F.2d 550,1933 AMC 1624(2d Cir.1933).
664 "the only questions left for the court to answer in Standard Dredging were "whether the physical connection of the craft is material, and whether the National*270 Dredging Company's Duty to Kristiansen'involved contractual obligations." 67 F.2d 550,1933 AMC 1624(2d Cir.1933).
665 It would for example be a strange whimsy to say that the dredge must here have been surrendered, had the barge happened to be made fast alongside, but that she need not, because there was a thousand feet of water between them. Surely that cannot be a significant difference, when substantial interests are at stake.... When, however, the unity of the vessels is made to depend upon their devotion to a single venture, it would be egregious to introduce a purely fortuitous condition which can have no rational relation to the interests involved.61 F.2d 550,1933 AMC 1624(2d Cir.1933).
666 "when the duty violated... presupposes at least the relation of master and servant, the owner must surrender all those vessels which share in the execution of the venture." 67 F.2d 551,1933 AMC 1624(2d Cir.1933).
667 Shannon A. Thornhill. The Flotilla Doctrine:Is Livernool Simnlv Outdated Or Is It Time to Abandon Ship? Tulane Maritime Law Journal.Winter 2008:268.
668 168 F.3d 206,1999 AMC 1366 (5th Cir.1999).
669 168 F.3d 207,1999 AMC 1367 (5th Cir.1999).
670 168 F.3d 207,1999 AMC 1367 (5th Cir.1999).
671 168 F.3d 208.1999 AMC 1367 (5th Cir.1999).
672 See generally Wirth Ltd. v. S/S Acadia Forest,537 F.2d 1272,1976 AMC 2178 (5th Cir.1976)
673 Cenac Towing Co. v. Terra Res., Inc.,734 F.2d 251,254 (5th Cir.1984).
674 Shannon A. Thornhill. The Flotilla Doctrine:Is Liverpool Simply Outdated Or Is It Time to Abandon Ship?. Tulane Maritime Law Joumal.Winter 2008:Tulane Maritime Law Journal.Winter 2008:265. 675 "The District Court, Stephen Wm. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, held that "flotilla doctrine" did not apply, and thus only offending vessel itself was required to be tendered for limitation purposes under Limitations of Liability Act." 838 F.Supp.2d 573,2012 A.M.C.2295.
676 838 F.Supp.2d 573,2012 A.M.C.2295.
677 838 F.Supp.2d 573,2012 A.M.C.2295.
678 "Turning to the facts of this case, CenterPoint alleges that AEP was negligent in its operation of the Safely Quest, and asserts a claim based upon maritime collision and tort principles. Neither CenterPoint nor AEP allege the existence of any contractual arrangement between them, and CenterPoint does not base any claim in this proceeding on a contractual obligation. Instead, this is a "pure tort" case governed by the Supreme court's holding in Liverpool,
and the flotilla doctrine simply does not apply."
679 George W. Pratt,76 F.2d at 903,1935 AMC at 675.838 F.Supp.2d 573,2012 A.M.C.2295.
680 George W. Pratt,76 F.2d at 903,1935 AMC at 674
681 George W. Pratt,76 F.2d at 903,1935 AMC at 674
682"Neither the actual decision nor the language of the Kristiansen Case can be given so broad a scope as to mean that all the vessels used successively in performing a contract are to be deemed collectively one vessel for purposes of surrender in limitation of liability. On the contrary, we think the rule is established that the vessels to be surrendered are those devoted to performance of the contract at the particular time when the fault which causes the loss is committed." George W. Pratt,76 F.2d at 903,1935 AMC at 674.
683 United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478,1949 AMC 424 (2d Cir.1949).
684 United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478,1949 AMC 423 (2d Cir.1949).
685 United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478,1949 AMC 425 (2d Cir.1949).
686 United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478,1949 AMC 429 (2d Cir.1949).
687 "[w]hen two vessels of the same owner contribute to a disaster, the owner may not limit liability without surrendering his interest in both his vessels." United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478.1949 AMC 432(2d Cir.1949).
688 “海船”是指按照海船建造规范设计和建造,并经国家法定船舶检验机构依法定检验规则检验取得相应的船舶技术证书后,经国家船舶登记机关登记的船舶。邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究,大连：大连海事大学博士学位论文,2010(3)：32.
689 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010：15.
690 李志文,王金东.论海商法中的船舶.理论界,2007(1[)：70-72.
691 邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究.大连：大连海事大学博士学位论文,2010(3)：35.
692 参见上海海事法院(2004)沪海法限字第2号民事裁定书.
693 台州市兴龙舟海运有限公司诉前申请扣押"5000DAE KYLUNG"和"SUN KWANG5001”两船案
694 邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究.大连：大连海事大学博士学位论文,2010(3)：141.
695 司玉琢.海商法专论.北京.中国人民大学出版社,2010年：245
[1]吴焕宁.海商法学.北京：法律出版社,1989.
[2]张湘兰,邓瑞平,姚天冲主编.海商法论.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2011.
[3]郭瑜.海商法教程.北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[4]司玉琢.海商法.北京：法律出版社,2007.
[5]威廉·泰特雷.国际海商法.张永坚等译.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[6]司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[7]王欣.救捞国际标准合同.大连：大连海事大学出版社,2011.
[8]司玉琢,胡正良主编.《中华人民共和国海商法》修改建议稿条文、参考立法例、说明.大连：大连海事大学出版社,2003.
[9]郁志轰.美国海商法.杭州：杭州大学出版社,1996.
[10]王泽鉴.民法摘编总论(第一册).台北：三民书局,1996.
[12]张文显.法理学.北京：高等教育出版社,2003.
[13]曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[14]程啸.侵权责任法.北京：法律出版社,2011.
[15]周友军.侵权法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2011.
[16]胡正良,韩立新.海事法(修订本).北京：北京大学出版社,2012.
[17]沈木珠.海商法比较研究.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[18]王家福.民法债权..北京：法律出版社,1991.
[19]莱尼·达维.英国法与法国法：一种实质性比较,潘华仿等译,北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[20]梁慧星.民法总论.北京：法律出版社,1996.
[21]李永军.合同法.北京：法律出版社,2010.
[22]韩世远.合同法总论.北京：法律出版社.2011.
[23]易军,宁红丽.合同法分则制度研究.北京：人民法院出版社,2003.
[24]张民安,王红一.合同法.广州：中山大学出版社,2003.
[25]史尚宽.债法各论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[26]傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社,2007.
[27]於世成、杨如南、汪淮江.海商法.北京:法律出版社,1997.
[28]司玉琢.海商法详论.大连：大连海事出版社,2003
[29]杨良宜.提单及其他付运单证.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007.
[30]史尚宽.债法各论北京：中国政法人学出版社,2000.
[31]梁慧星.民商法论丛.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[32]何丽新,谢美山.海事赔偿责任限制研究.厦门：厦门大学出版社,2008.
[33]G.吉尔摩C.L.布莱克.海商法.杨召南等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2000.
[34]王利明.合同法研究.北京.中国人民大学出版社,2011：483
[35]Simon Rainey. The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts.London: Informa Law & Finance.2011.
[36]Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law, Thomson West,4th ed.2004.
[37]Alfred Townsend Bucknill, The Law Relating to Tug and Tow, Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1913.
[38]Martin J. Norris, The Law of Salvage, Baker, Voorhis and Co.,1958. G. F.
[39]Woodroffe, Goods and Services-the New Law, Sweet & Maxwell,1982.
[1]朱清.对一宗海上拖航救助案的分析.中国海商法年刊,1991(2)：374-381.
[2]傅廷中.海上拖航的法律问题与实务.世界海运,2000(5)：50-51.
[3]李伟,王沛.指挥权原则：海上拖航合同法律性质判断标准.中国海商法年刊,2011,22(1)：28-33.
[4]沈健,陈敬根.论国际海上货物运输领域中的首要义务.中国海商法年刊,2011,22(2)：85-91.
[5]翟云岭、王阳：默示条款法律问题探究.法学论坛.200419(1)：29-34.
[6]蒋跃川.论适航义务是否是承运人的首要义务.中国海商法年刊,2008,18(1)：268-280.
[7]张思晨：《浅议船舶适航义务的举证责任问题》经济研究导刊2011(8)：164-165.
[8]喻志耀.合同法的规则原则探讨——兼论我国《合同法》的归责原则.江苏大学学报(社会科学版),2002(1)：50-56.
[9]屈茂辉.论民法上的注意义务.北方法学,2007(1)：22-34.
[10]周婵.比较分析销售者的产品瑕疵担保责任与产品责任之归责原则.法制博览,2013(4)：115-118.
[11]郭战普.试论良好船艺在船舶避让中的作用.天津航海,2006(3)：3-5.
[12]黄青男.试析被拖方对目的地的选择权——对一宗海上拖航合同纠纷案件的评析.中国海商法年刊,2005(1)：424-433.
[13]崔文星.论情事变更原则.河北法学,2013(4)：60-68.
[14]崔建远.免责条论中国法学.1991(6)：77.
[15]姜作利.英美法中的“合同落空”制度.政治与法律,1998(3)：76.
[16]林鹏鸠.论海难救助之概念.大连海事大学学报.1995：90.
[17]王利民.郭明龙.民事责任归责原则新论—过错推定规则的演进：现代归责原则的发展.法学论坛.2006(6)：59.
[18]傅志军.雇佣救助—海难救助的新形势.珠江水运.2007(6)：34.
[19]汪鹏南.论“比例过失原则”.中国海商法年刊,1991：20.
[20]袁绍春.论海上拖航合同的免责条款.中国海商法年刊,2001：190.
[21]曹阳辉.论海上拖航向海上救助拖带的转化.中国海商法年刊.2000：335-342.
[22]李黎.评2004年约克—安特卫普规则.海大法律评论.2005：328-340.
[23]邬先江,陈海波.海事赔偿责任限制制度的法理基础及其历史嬗变.浙江社会科学,2010(11)：18-22.
[23]Philip N. Davey, The Tug and Tow Relationship in the United States,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:475.
[24]W. Archie Bishop, The Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom, 70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:507.
[25]Charles E. Lugenbuhl David B. Sharpe, The Law of Towage at the Millennium:What Changes Are Needed,73 Tul.L.Rev.1999:1811.
[26]Chester D. Hooper & Jeanne-Marie D. Van Hemmen, Burdens of Proof Between Tugs & Tows,70 Tul. L. Rev.1995:531.
[27]Shannon A. Thornhill. Tulane Maritime Law Journal. Winter 2008.
[28]Sweeney, Joseph C. "Collisions Involving Tugs and Tows." Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995): 581.
[29]Bishop, W. Archie. "Relationship between the Tug and Tow in the United Kingdom." Tul. L. Rev.70 (1995):507.
[30]Status of multilateral Conventions and instruments in respect of which the InternationalMaritimeOrganizationoritsSecretary-Generalperformsdepositaryorother , http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/Status0fConventions/Documents/Status%20-%2 02013.pdf
[31]Tetley, William. "Liens for Towage Freight." J. Mar. L.& Com.15 (1984):199.
[1]邬先江.海事赔偿责任限制制度研究.大连：大连海事大学博士学位论文,2010年3月.
[2]曹阳辉.海上拖航法律制度研究.上海：上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2000年12月.
[3]雷楠.海上拖航过程中的损害赔偿责任研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2008年2月.
[4]权赫富.海上拖航实务与法律比较研究.上海：上海海运学院硕士学位论文,2001年11月.
[5]徐曦哲.《合同法》对海上拖航合同适用之研究.大连：大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2005年3月.
[1]The Minnehaha (1861) Lush.335; 15 Moo. RC.133.
[2]Standard Oil Co. v. United States,1927 AMC 427,431 (9th Cir.1927).
[3]Paumier v. Barge 1793 (TUG MiCHELE),395 R Supp.1019,1033,1974 AMC 2637,2650-51 (E. D. Va.1974).
[4]United States v. Le Beouf Brothers Towing Co.,621 F.2d 787,789-90 (5th Cir.1980).
[5]Carill, INC. Plaintiff v. C & P Towing CO Not Reported in F. Supp.,1990 WL 270199 (E. D. Va.),1991 A. M. C.101.
[6]The United Serviee(1883)8 P. D.569P. D.3.
[7]Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. v. United States,584 F.2d 1151,1155 (2d Cir.1978).
[8]Lemar Towing CO., INC. v. Fireman Fund Insurance Company 352 F. Supp.652,1973 A. M. C. 1844.
[9]The Complanit of Sea Wolf Marine Towing And Transportation, INC., as Owner of the Tug Sea Wolf for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability. Not Reported in F. Supp.2d,2007 WL 3340931 (S. D. N. Y.),2008 A. M. C.131.
[10]The West Cock[1911] P.208.
[11]Doherty v. Pennsylvania R. Co.269 f.959 (2d Cir.1920).
[12]Central Marine Service INC. Allstate Insurance Company Empolyers Casualty Company v. Gulf Fleet Marine Not Reported in F. Supp.,1983 WL 611 (E. D. La.),1984 A. M.C. 1019.
[13]King FoshcrI Marine Service v. The Np Sunbonnet, Her Engines 724 F.2d 1181,1984 A. M.C.1769.
[14]Boskalis Westminster International v. Island Maritime--- F. Supp.2d----,2012 WL 9189889 (S. D. Fla.)
[15]Elliott Steam Tuf Co. v. The Chester (1922)12 LI. L. Rep.331 at p.333 Lloyd' Maritime and Commercial Law
[16][1959] Lloyd's Rep.105.
[17]So uthegate v. Eastern Transp.Co.21 g.2d 47 (4th Cir.1927).
[18]Z. R. Baldwin, ETC.6 F. Supp.935,1934 A. M.C.444.
[19]Champion InternationCorporation v.S. S. Lash Pacifico, her engines, boilers, etc.569 F. Supp.1557,1984 A. M. C.444.
[20]Natg. Harrison Overseas Corporation v. American Tug Titan etc.516 F.2d 89,1975 A. M.C.2257.
[21]The Enterprise 228 F.131.
[22]Lemr Towing Co., Inc. v. Firemans Fund Insurance Company 352 F. Supp.652,1973 A. M. C. 1844.
[23]Black Stallion Enterprises, v. Bay & Ocean Marine Not Reported in F. Supp.2d,2010 WL 1333272 (E. D. La.).
[24]Derby Co. v. A. L. Mechl ing Barge Lines, Inc.,258 F. Supp.206,211 (E. D. La.1966).
[25]Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,1955,349 U. S.85,75 S. Ct.629,99 L. Ed.911.
[26]A. L. Mechl ing Bagge Lines, INC. v. Derby Company 399 F.2d 304,305 (5 th Cir.1968).
[27]The Undaunted(1886)11 PD 46.
[28]The marechal Suchet[1911] p 1.
[29]Owners of the ship'Borvigilant'v Owners of the ship 'Romina G'[2003] EWCA Civ 935 [2004] 1 C. L. C.41.
[30]Skandia Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Star Shipping AS,173 F. Supp.2d 1228, S. D. Ala.,2001. April 05,2001 (Approx.27 pages)
[31]Riverl Terminals Corporation v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Company 360 U.S. 411 (79 S. Ct.1210,3 L. Ed.2d 1334)
[32]Davis v Garrett(1830) 6 Bing 716, per Tindal CJ at p.725
[33]Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295 (CA).
[34]The Julia (1861) Lush 224; 14 Moo PC 210.
[35]Terrell v Mabie Todd & Co. Ltd (1952) 69 RPC 234.
[36]CPC Group v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010] EWHC 1535 (Ch).
[38]Stevens v. The White City,285 U.S.195,200,1932 AMC 468,470-71 (1932).
[39]Southgate v. Eastern Transp. Co.,21 F 2d 47,49,1927 AMC 1295,1298 (4th Cir. 1927).
[40]Eastern Tar Prods. v. Chesapeake Oil Transp. Co.,101 E2d 30,33,1939 AMC.59, 63 (4th Cir.1939).
[41]Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.350 U. S.124,76 S. Ct.232 U.S.1956.
[42]Fairmont Shipping Corp. v. Chevron International Oil Co.,511 F2d 1252,1259-60, 1975 AMC 261,270-71 (2d Cir.1975).
[43]McDermott Inc. v. Amclyde.1997 AMC 692. pp.697-698(E. I). La.1996.
[44]McAlister,Lim. Procs.,2000 AMC 2164, pp.2177-2178(E. D. Va.2000).
[45]Harbor Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Belcher Towing Co.,733 F.2d 823 (11th Cir.1984).
[46]Kenny Marine Towing, Inc. v. M/V John R. Rice,583 F. Supp.1196 (E. D. La.1984).
[47]Mid-America Transportation Co. v. Gladders Towing Co.,492F. Supp.475 (E. D. Mo.1980).
[48]Massman Construction Co. v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.,462 F.Supp.1362,1980 AMC 1164 (W.D. Mo.1979).
[49]Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. v. Flowers Transp. Inc.,538 F.Supp.65 (E. D. Mo.1982)
[50]Aiple Towing Co., Inc. v. M/V Lynne E. Quinn,534 F. Supp.409,411,1982 AMC 1869 (E. D. La.1982)
[51]Complaint of J.E. Brenneman Co.,782 F. Supp.1021 (E. D. Pa.1992).
[52]Dwyer Lighterage Inc. v. Christie Scow Corp.,96 F. Supp.900,1951 AMC 946 (E. D. N. Y.1951).
[53]A. E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Porto Rico Lighterage Co.,323 F. Supp.27,1970 AMC 2152 (E.D. La.1970), affirmed 438 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1971).
[54]Marport, Inc. v. Stabbert and Assoc., Inc.,771 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir.1985).
[55]McDonough Marine Service, Inc. v. M/V Royal Street,465 F. Supp.928,1982 AMC 2701 (E. D.La.1979), affirmed 608 F.2d 203 (5th Cir.1979).
[56]King Fisher Marine Service, Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet,724 F.2d 1181,1984 AMC 1769 (5th Cir.1984), rehearing denied 729 F.2d 315 (5th Cir.1984)
[57]Radcliff Materials Inc. v. M/V Rayco,1979 AMC 1362 (E. D. La.1979)
[58]The Pillsbury Co. v. Delta Boat & Barge Rental Inc.,1979 AMC 1221 (E. D. La.1978)
[59]Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. v. Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc.,522 F. Supp.842 (E. D. Mo.1981)
[60]Central Marine Service, Inc. v. Gulf Fleet Marine Corp.,1983 WL 611,1984 AMC 1019 (E. D. La.1983)
[61]Pasco Marketing, Inc. v. Taylor Towing Service, Inc.,411 F. Supp.808 (E. D. Mo.1976) affirmed in part, reversed in part 554 F.2d 808 (8th Cir.1977).
[62]The Shanklin (1932) 43 LI L Rep 153.
[63]The Lagarto (1923) 17 LI L Rep 264.
[64]The Contest v The Age (1923) 17 L1 L Rep 172.
[65]The Clan Colquhoun [1936] P 153.
[66]The Harmony v The Northborough (1923) 15 LI L Rep 119.
[67]The Isca (1886) 12 PD 34.
[68]The Englishman and The Australia [1894] P 239.
[69]The Altair [1897] P 105;The Ratata [1898] AC 513.
[70]The Stormcock (1885) 5 Asp MLC 470;The Altair [1897] P 105.
[71]The Robert Dixon (1879) 5 PD 54.
[72]The Devonshire [1912] P 21
[73]SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634.
[74]The Jane Bacon (1878) 27 WR 35.
[75]The Comet (Owners) v The W. H. No.1 (and others) [1911] AC 30.
[76]The Minnie Somers v The Francis Batey (1921) 8 LI L Rep 247.
[77]The Valsesia [1927] P 115 and The Energy (1870) 23 LT 601).
[78]The Niobe (1888) 13 PD 55.
[79]The Englishman and The Australia [1894] P 239.
[80]The Abaris (1920) 2 LI L Rep 411.
[81]P. Dougherty Co. v. United States,207 F.2d 626 (3d Cir.1953).
[82]Cleary Bros. v. the Dauntless,178 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1949).
[83]United States Borax & Chemical Corp. v. McAllister Brothers, Inc.,1981 AMC 2293 (S. D. N. Y.1980).
[84]Mosbacher Production Co. v. Louisiana Materials Co.,1981 AMC 1458 (E. D. La.1980).
[85]Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Mays Towing Co., Inc.,927 F.2d 1453,1991 AMC 1540 (8th Cir.1991).
[86]Tug Lindenwood Victory,305F. Supp.570,1969 AMC 1962 (W. D. Wash.1969).
87] Nat G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. American Tug Titan,516 F.2d 89,1975 AMC 2257 (5th Cir.1975), modified 520 F.2d 1104,1975 AMC 2271 (5th Cir.1975).
[88]Agrico Chemical Co. v. M/V Ben W. Martin,664 F.2d 85,1985 AMC 563 (5th Cir.1981), rehearing denied 669 F.2d 733 (5th Cir.1982).
[88]The Coleraine,179 F.977 (E. D. N. Y.1910).
[89]The Har low [1922] P 175.
[90]The Devonian [1901] P 221.
[91]The St. Patrick (1930) 35 LI L Rep 231.
[92]The Refrigerant [1925] P 130.
[93]The Golden Light, The HM Hayes, The Annapolis (1861) Lush 365.
[94]The Aboukir (1905) 21 TLR 200.
[95]Gamecock Steam Towing Co Ltd v Trader Navigation Ltd (1937) 59 LI L Rep 170.
[96]The Walumba(owner) v. Ausralian Coastal Shipping Commission[1965] 1 Lloyd's Rep 121.
[97]The Glenmorven [1913] P 141.
[98]The Celadon (1860) 14 Moo PC 97;THE AMEICAN AND THE SYRIA (1874) LR 6PC127 AT P.132.
[99]The Lord Bangor [1898] P 28.
[100]The Challenge and Due d'Aumale [1905] P 198.
[101]The Arthur Gordon (1861) Lush 270.
[102]The La Plata (1857) Swa 220.
[103]The Francis Batey (1921) 811 L Rep247.
[104]The Sinquasi(1880) 5 PD 241.
[105]Spaight v Ted castle (1881) 6 App Cas 217.
[106]The Duke of Manchester (1846)4.
[107]The Western Neptune and The StLouis Express [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 158.
[108]Thomas Stone (Shipping) Ltd v The Admiralty (The Albion) [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239.
[109]The Marmion (1913) 29TLR 646.
[110]The Energy (1870) LR 3 A & E 48.
[111]The Albion [1952] 1 Lloyd' sRep 38.
[112]The Francis Batey (1921) 611 L Rep 389.
[113]The Kite, [1933] P.154 (1933) 46 LI. L. Rep.83.
[114]MacGregor,[1943] A. C.197; [1942] 74 LI. L. R.82.
[115]Cleary Bros. v. the Dauntless,178 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1949).
[116]The Fort George,183 F 731,732-33 (2d Cir.1910), cert, denied,219 U.S.589 (1911).
[117]Spentonbush/Red Star Companies v. N. L. R. B.,106 F.3d 484 (2d Cir.1997).
[118]Dow Chem Co. v. Tug Thomas Allen,349 F Supp.1354,1363,1974 AMC 781,792 (E.D. La.1972).
[119]Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffiths, [1947]AC 1 (HL).
[120]The Adrpatic & The Welungton,30 T. L. R.699,699 (P.1914).
[121]The American and The Syria (1874) LR 6 PC 127.
[122]The Robert Dixon (1879) 5 PD 54.
[123]The Adriatic and The Wellington (1914) 30 TLR 699.
[124]The Cap Palos, [1921] P.458
[125]The United Service,9 P. D.3 (1884).
[126]THE ANACONDA,164 F.2d 224,227 (4th Cir.1947).
[127]Mid-America Transp. Co. v. National Marine Serv., Inc.,497 F.2d 776,1974 AMC 1943 (8th Cir.1974).
[128]In re Berkely Curtis Bay Co.,557 F. Supp.335,338-39,1984 AMC 1934,1939 (S. D. N. Y.1983).
[129]The Socrates and The Champion [19231 P76.
[130]The Kite [1933] P.154.
[131]Canada v. The Delta Pride (2003)
[132]The MSC Panther and The Ericbank [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 57
[133]The Adriatic and The Wellington (1914) 30 TLR 699.
[134]The United Service,9 P. D.3 (1884).
[135]Owners of SteamshipTeamship Devonshire v. Barge Lesie [1912] A.C.634.
[136]The Cairnbahn[1914] P 25.
[137]Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Arkansas River Co.,271 F.3d 753,2002 AMC 331 (8th Cir.2001).
[138]Sturgis v. Boyer,65 U.S. (24 How.) 110,16 L.Ed.591 (1860).
[139]The Civilta,103 U.S. (13 Otto) 699,26 L.Ed.599 (1880).
[140]Chevron U.S. A., Inc. v. Progress Marine Inc.,1980 AMC 1637 (E. D. La.1979); Alter Co. v. M/V Miss Sue,536 F. Supp.313,1983 AMC 302 (E. D. La.1982); Canarctic Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Great Lakes Towing Co.,670 F.2d 61 (6th Cir.1982).
[141]Cody v. Phil's Towing Co.,247 F. Supp.2d 688,2002 AMC 2542 (W. D. Pa.2002); Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. Progress Marine, Inc.,1980 AMC 1637 (E. D. La.1979).
[142]Ryan Walsh Stevedoring,557 F. Supp. at 460,1983 AMC at 2517-18.
[143]Kinsman Marine Transp. Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co.,1975 AMC 837,841 (N. D. Ohio 1975).
[144]Montauk Oil Co. v. Tug Laurie And Reinauer,1974 AMC 2382,2386-87 (S. D. N. Y. 1974).
[145]In re Barrett,108 F Supp.710,718-19,1953 AMC 159,171-72 (S. D. N. Y.1952), modified on other grounds,209 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1954).
[146]Tug Thorns Allen,349 F. Supp. at 1363,1974 AMC at 792.
[147]In re Patton-Tully Transp. Co.1983 AMC 1288,1299-1300 (E. D. La.1982).
[148]Oil Transfer Corp. v. Westchester Ferry Corp.,173 F. Supp.637,640,1959 AMC 485,488 (S. D.N. Y.1958).
[149]Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v. Gulf Ref. Co.,1933 AMC 1086,1087 (E. D. N. Y.1933).
[150]Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 (14 February 1980)
[151]Robertson v Amazon Tug Company[7] Court of Appeal,1881.
[152]Point Anne Quarries v The Tug Mary Francis Whalen (1922) 13 L1 L Rep 40
[153]Fraser & White Ltd v Vernon [1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep 175
[154]The Glenmorven[1913]P 141.
[155]Smit International Deutschland GmbH v. Josef Mobius Bau-gesellschaft GmbH (judgement 7 June 2001:L. M. L. N.564)
[156]The A Turtle [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep.177.
[157]The Borvigilant and Romina G [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 520.
[158]Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shpping Ltd. [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep.397.
[159]The Liverpool [1893] P 154.
[160]The Homewood (1928) 3111 L Rep 336.
[161]Star Towing Co. v. Barge ORG-6504 301 F.Supp.819 D. C. La.1969.
[162]The Refrigerant [1925]P 130.
[163]The Domby (1941) 6911 L Rep 161.
[164]The Lampas (1933) 4511 L Rep259.
[165]The Hjemmett (1880) 5 PD 227.
[166]The Annapolis (1861) Lush 355.
[167]The Slaney [1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep 538.
[168]The Galatea (1858) Swab 349
[169]The Star Maria [2003]1 Lloyd's Rep 183.
[170]The Matina (1920) 211 L Rep 360.
[171]The Lolin (1931) 3911 L Rep182.
[172]The Aztecs (1870) 3 Asp MLC 326.
[173]The Owners of the Sea Tractor v The Owners of the Tramp [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 363.
[174]The Saratoga (1861) Lush 318.
[175]The Trevorian (1940) 6611 L Rep 45.
[176]The White Star (1866) LR 1 A & E 68.
[177]The Albion (1861) Lush 282.
[178]The Driade [1959] 2 Lloyd's Rep 311.
[179]The Mount Cythnos (1937) 5811 L Rep 18 at p.25.
[180]The North Goodwin No.16 [1980]1 Lloyd's Rep 71.
[181]The Five Steel Barges (1890) 15 PD 142.
[182]The Leon Blum [1915] P 90.
[183]The Madras [1898] P 90.
[184]The Massalia [1961] 2 QB 278.
[185]Wells v. Owners of Gas Float Whitton (1879) No.2.
[186]The Rilland [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455.
[187]The Waterloo (1820) 2 Dods 433
[188]Steam Trawling Co Ltd v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd 1908 SC 651.
[189]Fisher v The Oceanic Grandeur[1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep 396.
[190]Polskie Ratownictwo Okertowe v Rallovito & C Snc and Another [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep.384.
[191]The Texaco Southampton [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 94.
[192]Nunley v The Dauntless 863 F.2d.1190 (1989).
[193]The Cargo ex Capella (1867) LR 1 A & E 356.
[194]The Due d'Aumale (No.2) [1904] P 60.
[195]The Beaverford v The Kafiristan [1938] AC 136.
[196]The Susan V Luckenbach [1951] P 197 (CA).
[197]The Beaverford v The Kafiristan [1938] AC 136.
[198]The Homely Fed. Cas. No.661 (1876).
[199]Merchants Marine Insurance Co v North of England P & I (1926) 23 Com Cas 165.
[191]Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep163.
[192]R v Goodwin [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 432.
[193]R. vCarrick District Council, ex p. Prankerd (The Winnie Rigg) [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 675.
[194]Targe Towing Ltd v The Von Rocks [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 198.
[195]Global Marine Drilling Co v Triton Holdings Ltd (The Sovereign Explorer) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 60.
[196]The Ran;The Graygarth [1922] P 20, P 86.
[197]The Freden (1950) 8311 L Rep 427.
[198]Alexandra Towing v Millet (Owners) and Egret (Owners), The Bramley Moore [1964] P 217-218.
[199]London Dredging Co vGreater London Council (The Sir Joseph Rawlinson) [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437,440.
[200]The Smjeli [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 80-81.
[201]Re Waterman S. S. Corp.,794 F. Supp.601,1992 AMC 2658 (E. D. La.1992).
[202]Re Midland Enters., Inc.,296 F. Supp.1356,1970 AMC 2437 (S. D. Ohio 1968).
[203]Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.,531 U. S.438,446,2001 AMC 913,918 (2001).
[204]Rev. St. §§ 4283-4285,46 U. S. C. A.§§ 183-185.
[205]251 U.S.48,40 S. Ct.66,64 L.Ed.130.
[206]The James Gray v. The John Fraser,21 How.184,16 L. Ed.106.
[207]The J. P. Donaldson,167 U. S.599,603,604,17 Sup. Ct.951,42 L. Ed.292.
[208]The Eugene F. Moran,212 U. S.466,474,475,29 Sup. Ct.339,53 L. Ed.600.
[209]Union Steamship Co. v. Owners of the Aracan, L. R.6 P. C.127.
[210]The John G. Stevens,170 U. S.113,123,18 Sup. Ct.544,42 L. Ed.969.
[211]The W. G. Mason,142 Fed.913,917,74 C. C. A.83.
[212]The Eugene F. Moran,212 U. S.466,475,29 Sup. Ct.339,53 L. Ed.600; L. R.6 P. C.127,133.
[213]Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz,273 U. S.326-330,332,1927 AMC 398-400,402(1927).
[214]67 F.2d 548-551,1933 AMC 1621 (2d Cir.1933).
[215]168 F.3d 206-208,1999 AMC 1366 (5th Cir.1999).
[216]George W. Pratt,76 F.2d at 903,1935 AMC at 674-676.
[217]United States v. The Australia Star,172 F.2d 472,478,1949 AMC 423-425.429.432 (2d Cir.1949).
[218]Wirth Ltd. v. S/S Acadia Forest,537 F.2d 1272,1976 AMC 2178 (5th Cir.1976).
[219]Cenac Towing Co. v. Terra Res., Inc.,734 F.2d 251,254 (5th Cir.1984).
[220]838 F.Supp.2d 573,2012 A. M. C.2295
[221]香港井川国际航运集团、华威近海船舶服务有限公司诉交通部上海海上救助打捞局(“昌鑫”轮)拖航合同纠纷案.
[222]烟台市供销工业总公司诉交通部烟台海上救助打捞局(“北海102”轮)拖航合同纠纷案
[221]林贤峻、陈倩萍诉海南省临高县昆社航运公司、湛江市水运总公司第三公司、苏开利等,(2002)广海法初字第37号.
[222]广州海上救助打捞局诉钜业远东有限公司海上拖航合同纠纷案 广州海事法院(1999)广海法商字第71号.
[223]中国人民保险公司广东省分公司营业部诉广州港船务公司(“凯旋门”海鲜舫)拖航合同纠纷案.
[223]xxx等与xxx等船舶损坏海底设施损害赔偿纠纷上诉案.(2013)鲁民四终字第30号.
[224]郭春香等与周渊洁等海上人身损害赔偿纠纷上诉案.(2012)浙海终字第30号
[225]广东电网公司广州花都供电局与佛山市中力经营管理有限公司等船舶触碰供电线路损害赔偿纠纷上诉案.(2009)粤高法民四终字第71号.
[226]天津市滨海天保疏浚工程有限公司与大连万向船务有限公司拖航合同纠纷上诉案.(2010)辽民三终字第205号.
[227]大连源吉盛粮油有限公司、天安保险股份有限公司揭阳中心支公司诉黄石市万通海运有限公司水路货物运输合同案.广州海事法院(2008)广海法初字第482号;广东省高级人民法院(2009)粤高法民四终字第231号.
[1]中国船级社《海上拖航指南》(2011)GD-022012.
[2]http://www. admiraltylawguide.com/conven/limitation1976.html.[2013-10-16]. Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims,1976 (London,19 November 1976)[EB/OL].
[3]http://www. legislation.gov. uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/24. [2013-10-16]. SeniorCou rts Act 1981,Supplementary provisions as to Admiralty jurisdiction[EB/OL].
[4]http://www.tasports.com.au/pdf/UK%20STANDARD%20CONDITIONS%20FOR%20TOWAGE%20AN D%20OTHER%20SERVICES%20(REVISED%201986)%20AMENDED%2OBY%20TASPORTS%202011.pdf. [2013-10-20] UK STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR TOWAGE AND OTHER SERVICES (REVISED 1986)
[5]http://www.maritimeknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/image/Charterparties/Time-C P/SUPPLYTIME_2005.pdf. [2013-12-10] SUPPLETIME-2005[EB/OL].
[6]www.americansalvage.org/contracts/Towcom.pdf. TONCON 2008
[7]http://www.nostokonepalvelu.fi/sites/nostokonepalvelu.fi/files/ Todistukset/NKP todistukset/Heavycon%202007.pdf.[2013-12-20]HEAVYCON2007[EB/OL].
