The case involved insurance on a cargo of oranges, warranting it free from partial loss or damage unless such loss or damage was consequent on collision with any other ship.
During the voyage, a collision occurred, necessitating the vessel to be put into port for repairs.
Repairs required discharging the cargo into lighters and subsequently reloading it.
Upon arrival at the destination, it was discovered that the fruit was considerably damaged, partly due to handling during unloading and reloading, and partly from natural decay due to the voyage delay.
Suit was filed for claiming the damages by plaintiff.
Mathew, J., decided the matter in favour of defendant.
ISSUE-
whether this damage to the cargo was a consequence of or caused by the collision as per the insurance policy.
RULE-
According to English law, in cases of marine insurance, only the proximate cause of the loss must be considered, and not any remote causes that may have contributed to it.
HELD-
The court acknowledged that sometimes there may be a succession of causes leading to a loss. However, in cases of marine insurance, only the last cause, or the proximate cause, is considered. Even if there are preceding causes, they are disregarded.
The court analyzed the sequence of events leading to the loss, which included a collision, repairs, removal of cargo, and damage to the cargo during handling. While the collision may have initiated the chain of events, the proximate cause of the damage to the cargo was determined to be the handling, which occurred as a consequence of the repairs.
The court referenced the case law, particularly Taylor v. Dunbar, which supported the view that only the proximate cause of the loss is relevant in marine insurance cases. This case law established a precedent for determining liability in similar situations.
The court noted that American law on this matter differs from English law but stated that it was not necessary to consider American authorities in this case.
Based on these reasons, the court affirmed the judgment of Mathew, J., which likely favoured the defendant underwriters, as it was determined that the proximate cause of the loss was not covered under the terms of the marine insurance policy hence, not recoverable.