Article by Martin Davies
The admiralty doctrine of personification treats the ship as the true defendant in an in rem action, with rights and responsibilities separate (at least in concept) from those of its owner. Under the doctrine of ratification, when a ship completes loading of a cargo, it is assumed to have ratified any bills of lading in respect of that cargo that have been issued by or on behalf of someone other than the shipowner. In combination, the two doctrines produce the result that a ship may be held liable in rem for breach of a bill of lading contract to which its owner was not a party. Although the doctrine of personification has been strongly criticized for producing results such as this, where the ship is held liable when its owner is not, this Article argues that, in this particular context, the doctrines of personification and ratification combine to produce a desirable and efficient means of allocating liability to those best able to determine where it should properly lie. This Article mounts a defense of the doctrine of personification and analyzes two possible explanatory theories underpinning the doctrine of ratification. It compares the U.S. law with the position in countries that have rejected the doctrine of personification and concludes that the U.S. doctrines are more desirable, because they are more in keeping with modern shipping practice, where ownership of the ship is often separated from commercial responsibility for its operation.
About the Author
Martin Davies. Professor and Director, Maritime Law Center, Tulane Law School.
Citation
75 Tul. L. Rev. 337 (2000)