我國國際港埠裝卸人貨損責任之探討

• Main Author: 謝文豐
• Other Authors: 崔延紘
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2003
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/15276377836627679501

碩士 === 國立海洋大學 === 海洋法律研究所 === 91 === Abstract Since the establishment of Hague rule in 1924, the responsibility for damaging Commodities during loading and un-loading by the conveyer has long been an Un-solved problem. Regarding legalization, along with the development of International trade and the diversity of container transportation, all the occupation on Land have also expand their items of servicing, which also .stevedore the occupation. The name of the occupation varies with Countries. Internationally, the commonly used name for the occupation of load-and-discharge is stevedores, which is Traditionally called..the assistant of ocean carrier,and who can still be named. agents and servant,and Independent contractor. With respect to the legal status , the Opinion is still diverse between Countries. Some adopted Himalaya clause, such as England has become a member of Hague/ Visby rule ever since 1971. Although Clause 4.1.2 of the Himalaya Clause has been articled, the United States still judicial precedent as the ...instead of accepting the rule of Visby. In our Country, before establishment of the new Maritime Law there used to have argument regarding.divide theory.or single theory ,.Since the adopted laws are different among the above mentioned Countries, the legal status of stevedores and their responsibilities are still quite diverse, almost of the Countries have the same agreement . This thesis begins from the legal status of stevedore. to investigate the definition of .stevedore and also the legal relationship between.stevedore.and the administration unit of a commercial port, and subsequently, the status of .stevedore of agents and servant ocean carrier and its contract responsibility relationship with Regarding accidents duce to loading and unloading, an important factor causing responsibility, is briefly investigated. Finally, a case on goods damage judicial precedent is analyzed for comparison the difference between theory and practice.