Carriage of Goods by Sea Act Fundamentals
《海上貨物運輸法》基本原則

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) defines the basic relationship—duties, liabilities, rights, and immunities—between ocean carrier and cargo owner. COGSA was passed in the United States in 1936 and its enactment was the result of various concerns by Congress. In the early nineteenth century, carriers were strictly liable for cargo damage, with only few limited exceptions to liability for an act of God, public enemies, and inherent vices. By the second half of the nineteenth century, carriers began issuing bills of lading containing exculpatory clauses that sought to reduce or eliminate a carrier’s liability altogether. Therefore, a compromise occurred in 1893 when Congress enacted the Harter Act, which sought to achieve uniformity in the rules of liability applied in international shipping and to strike a balance between carriers’ efforts to reduce liability and cargo owners’ efforts to impose liability regardless of fault. The Harter Act allowed carriers who furnished a seaworthy vessel and exercised due care with the cargo to be exempt from most liability. Currently, the Harter Act has not been repealed and does govern certain transactions where COGSA does not. Below is a detailed exploration of the key differences between the Harter Act and COGSA.
《海上貨物運輸法》（“COGSA”）定義了海運承運人和貨主之間的基本關係——義務、責任、權利和豁免權。COGSA 於 1936 年在美國通過，其頒布是國會各種關注的結果。在 19 世紀初，承運人對貨物損壞承擔嚴格責任，只有少數有限的例外是對天災、公敵和固有惡習的責任。到 19 世紀下半葉，承運人開始簽發包含免責條款的提單，旨在減少或完全消除承運人的責任。因此，1893 年國會頒布了《哈特法案》，該法案旨在實現國際航運中適用的責任規則的統一，並在承運人減少責任的努力和貨主努力施加責任（無論是否有過錯）之間取得平衡。《哈特法案》允許提供適航船舶並對貨物採取適當注意措施的承運人免除大部分責任。目前，《哈特法案》尚未被廢除，並且確實管轄 COGSA 沒有的某些交易。以下是對 Harter 法案和 COGSA 之間主要區別的詳細探討。

Differences Between the COGSA and the Harter Act
COGSA 和 Harter 法案之間的區別

COGSA applies by force of law to contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, to or from foreign ports and U.S. ports. The Harter Act applies to the carriage of goods to or from U.S. ports. COGSA preempts the Harter Act with respect to contracts of carriage pertaining to foreign trade. COGSA does allow for parties to incorporate its provisions for the contract of carriage for voyages between U.S. ports. In fact, it is not uncommon for parties to do so. The question may be asked why a carrier would agree or even want to expand coverage: one reason could be that COGSA provides carriers with a wide array of defenses, and where liability does exist it can be limited.
COGSA 依法適用於往返外國港口和美國港口的海上貨物運輸合同。《哈特法案》適用於進出美國港口的貨物運輸。COGSA 在與外貿有關的運輸合同方面優先於《哈特法案》。COGSA 確實允許各方將其條款納入美國港口之間航行的運輸合同中。事實上，各方這樣做的情況並不少見。可能會有人問為什麼保險公司會同意甚至想要擴大承保範圍：一個原因可能是 COGSA 為保險公司提供了廣泛的防禦措施，並且在確實存在責任的情況下，它可以受到限制。

COGSA applies from “tackle to tackle,” meaning the time goods are loaded onboard the vessel until the time the goods are discharged from the vessel, while the Harter Act applies to preloading, or receipt of such cargo, to the post-discharge, or delivery of the goods. Both the Harter Act and COGSA do not apply to live animals, and COGSA does not apply to cargo carried on deck.
COGSA 適用於“從釣具到釣具”，即貨物裝船到貨物從船上卸貨的時間，而《哈特法案》適用於此類貨物的預裝或接收，適用於貨物卸貨后或交付。Harter 法案和 COGSA 都不適用於活體動物，COGSA 也不適用於甲板上運輸的貨物。

Other notable differences between the two acts include that COGSA provides for a $500 per package limitation, whereas the Harter Act does not and that COGSA claims must be filed within one year whereas a claim under the Harter Act does not have an enumerated time limitation.[1]
這兩個法案之間的其他顯著區別包括 COGSA 規定了每個包裹 500 美元的限制，而 Harter 法案則沒有，並且 COGSA 索賠必須在一年內提交，而根據 Harter 法案提出的索賠沒有列舉的時間限制。[1]

Who is a COGSA Carrier and What Are the Carrier’s Duties?
誰是 COGSA 承運人，承運人的職責是什麼？

A COGSA carrier is generally the owner of the vessel, the vessel itself (in rem), or a time charterer that enters into a contract of carriage and issues a bill of lading.
COGSA 承運人通常是船舶的擁有者、船舶本身（ 對物 ）或簽訂運輸合同並簽發提單的定期租船人。

A COGSA carrier has certain duties as prescribed by section 3(1). Specifically, a carrier, before and at the start of the voyage must exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy ship, to properly man, equip, and supply the ship; and to make the holds, refrigeration and cooling chambers, and all other areas of the vessel where goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, preservation, and carriage. Section 3(2) of COGSA requires the carrier to “properly and carefully load, handle, stow, care for, and discharge the goods carried.”  
COGSA 承運人承擔第 3（1） 條規定的某些職責。具體來說，承運人在航行之前和開始時必須盡職盡責，以提供適航的船舶，以適當地配備、裝備和供應船舶;並使貨艙、冷藏室和冷卻室以及船舶上運載貨物的所有其他區域適合和安全接收、保存和運輸。COGSA 第 3（2） 條要求承運人“正確、小心地裝載、處理、存放、照顧和卸載所攜帶的貨物”。

Once the carrier receives the goods, it then, and upon demand of the shipper, must issue a bill of lading. Importantly, a carrier cannot use an exculpatory clause to avoid the duties and obligations set out in Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of COGSA, which requires the carrier to exercise due care, or due diligence. Thus, the liability of the carrier is based upon fault and negligence, not mere damage or loss to the cargo.
承運人收到貨物后，必須根據託運人的要求簽發提單。重要的是，承運商不能使用開脫條款來逃避 COGSA 第 3（1） 和 3（2） 節中規定的責任和義務，這些條款要求承運商採取應有的謹慎或盡職調查。因此，承運人的責任是基於過錯和疏忽，而不僅僅是對貨物的損壞或損失。

What is Meant by the Carrier’s Obligation to Make a Vessel Seaworthy?
承運人確保船舶適航的義務是什麼意思？

Seaworthiness is a relative term and is determined by whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo that she has undertaken to transport. Pursuant to Section 4(1) of COGSA, neither the carrier nor vessel owner shall be liable for loss or damage arising from the unseaworthiness of the vessel unless it is caused by a lack of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy. Thus, unless the carrier is negligent in failing to discover the defective condition, or failing to remedy it once discovered, the carrier will not be liable. The duty to exercise due care is imposed before and at the commencement of the voyage. This means that the carrier is not liable for damage to the cargo resulting from the unseaworthy condition if the defective condition rendering the vessel unseaworthy is not reasonably discoverable, or it arose after the vessel’s voyage commenced.
適航性是一個相對術語，取決於船舶是否合理地適合運載其承諾運輸的貨物。根據 COGSA 第 4（1） 條，承運人和船東均不對因船舶不適航而造成的損失或損害負責，除非是由於缺乏盡職調查使船舶適航造成的。因此，除非承運人因疏忽而未能發現缺陷狀況，或在發現缺陷後未能進行補救，否則承運人將不承擔任何責任。在航程開始前和航程開始時，應履行應有的謹慎義務。這意味著，如果導致船舶不適航的缺陷狀況無法合理發現，或者缺陷狀況是在船舶航行開始后出現的，則承運人不對因不適航狀況而造成的貨物損害負責。

Carrier Immunities Under COGSA
COGSA 下的運營商豁免

Pursuant to Section 4(1), COGSA carriers have 17 enumerated immunities, or defenses.[2] These defenses are based upon a variety of circumstances. Some of the enumerated defenses can arise due to external forces, such as acts of public enemies, war, arrest or restraint of princes (or governments), and strikes. Defenses can arise due to the negligence of employees, such as errors in navigation. Defenses can also be attributed to natural forces such as acts of God and perils of the sea. Additionally, in some cases, carrier defenses can be attributed to the acts of the shipper, such as losses resulting from inherent vices, insufficiency of packaging or marking.
根據第 4（1） 條，COGSA 承運人有 17 種列舉的豁免或辯護。[2] 這些辯護是基於各種情況。一些列舉的防禦措施可能是由於外部力量而引起的，例如公敵行為、戰爭、王子（或政府）的逮捕或限制以及罷工。由於員工的疏忽，例如導航錯誤，可能會出現防禦措施。防禦也可以歸因於自然力量，例如天災和海洋危險。此外，在某些情況下，承運人的抗辯可歸因於託運人的行為，例如因固有缺陷、包裝或標記不足而導致的損失。

Burdens of Proof in a COGSA Case
COGSA 案件的舉證責任

The cargo owner bears the initial burden under COGSA to make a prima facie case by showing that the cargo was delivered to the carrier in good order and condition and was discharged in damaged condition. To avoid liability, the carrier must then prove that the cause of the loss was due to one of the excepted causes enumerated in Section 4(1) and that it acted with due diligence to care for the cargo. If successful, the burden shifts back to the cargo interests to prove that the damage resulted from the carrier’s negligence. Where negligence is shown as at least a concurrent cause of the damage, then the burden shifts one more time to the carrier to establish what portion of the loss was attributable to its negligence and what portion was attributable to an excepted cause; if it fails to meet this burden then it will be liable for the entire loss.
根據 COGSA 的規定，貨主負有初步責任，證明貨物以良好的狀態和狀況交付給承運人，並在損壞的情況下卸貨。為避免責任，承運人必須證明損失的原因是第 4（1） 節中列舉的例外原因之一，並且它盡職盡責地照顧貨物。如果成功，責任將轉移回貨物利益部門，以證明損害是由於承運人的疏忽造成的。如果疏忽被證明是損害的至少同時原因，則責任再次轉移到承運人身上，以確定損失的哪一部分可歸因於其疏忽，哪一部分可歸因於例外原因;如果它未能履行這一責任，那麼它將承擔全部損失。

Per-Package Limitation  每個包的限制

Usually, pursuant to COGSA, when cargo is damaged or lost in situations that are not within the 17 enumerated defenses, the shipper is entitled to recover damages. COGSA limits carrier liability to 500 dollars per package in these instances. In order for carriers to assert the per-package limitation, U.S. courts typically require adequate notice of the limitation and the fair opportunity given to the shipper to declare a higher excess value.
通常，根據 COGSA，當貨物在列舉的 17 項抗辯之外的情況下損壞或丟失時，託運人有權追討損害賠償。在這些情況下，COGSA 將承運人的責任限制為每個包裹 500 美元。為了讓承運人主張每件包裹的限制，美國法院通常需要充分通知限制，並給予託運人公平的機會來申報更高的超額價值。

In order to fully comprehend the 500-dollars-per-package limitation, it is important to understand what constitutes a “package.” If cargo is completely enclosed, it is considered a package for COGSA purposes. Difficulties arise when goods are only partially enclosed. Most courts look to the intent of the parties, as evidenced in the bill of lading. It is also important to note that a cargo interest will never receive more that its actual damages.  
為了完全理解每個包裹 500 美元的限制，了解什麼是“包裹”非常重要。如果貨物是完全封閉的，則被視為用於 COGSA 目的的包裹。當貨物僅部分封閉時，就會出現困難。大多數法院都會關注雙方的意圖，如提單所示。同樣重要的是要注意，貨物權益永遠不會收到超過其實際損失的損失。

If the goods are not shipped in a “package,” then the liability is limited to 500 dollars per customary freight unit (“CFU”). The CFU is derived from the method that was used to calculate the freight in the contract of carriage, usually based upon weight.
如果貨物不是以“包裹”形式運輸的，則責任限於每個慣常貨運單位 （“CFU”） 500 美元。CFU 源自運輸合同中用於計算運費的方法，通常基於重量。

Unreasonable Deviations  不合理的偏差

There are different consequences under COGSA depending on whether a deviation is reasonable or unreasonable. A deviation that is intended to save life or property at sea is not a breach of the contract of carriage and thus the carrier would not be liable for loss or damage resulting from the deviation. Conversely, COGSA states that a deviation for the purpose of loading or unloading cargo or passengers shall be regarded as unreasonable. COGSA does not specify the consequences of an unreasonable deviation; however, the majority of courts regard an unreasonable deviation to deprive the carrier of both the defenses under COGSA and the $500 per-package limitation if there is a causal connection between the deviation and the cargo damage or loss.
根據 COGSA 的不同後果，具體取決於偏差是合理的還是不合理的。旨在挽救海上生命或財產的偏差並不違反運輸合同，因此承運人不對因偏差造成的損失或損害負責。相反，COGSA 規定，以裝卸貨物或乘客為目的的偏差應被視為不合理。COGSA 沒有規定不合理偏差的後果;但是，如果偏差與貨物損壞或損失之間存在因果關係，大多數法院認為不合理的偏差剝奪了承運人根據 COGSA 和每個包裹 500 美元的限制的抗辯。

Conclusion  結論

To summarize, an ocean carrier is not necessarily fully liable for whatever might occur to cargo during transit. COGSA does not impose strict liability. Liability under COGSA is predicated on fault or negligence. Carrier defenses can arise due to internal or external forces, and it is important for the carrier and the shipper to perform a cargo assessment to determine whether the cargo may be exempted from liability.
總而言之，海運承運人不一定對貨物在運輸過程中可能發生的任何事情承擔全部責任。COGSA 不施加嚴格責任。COGSA 規定的責任以過錯或疏忽為前提。承運人的抗辯可能是由於內部或外部力量而引起的，承運人和託運人必須進行貨物評估，以確定貨物是否可以免除責任。

For more information on this topic, please view our recent webinar Mainbrace Live: All Aboard! What to Do Following COGSA and USCG Marine Casualty Investigations.
有關此主題的更多資訊，請查看我們最近的網路研討會 Mainbrace Live：All Aboard！COGSA 和 USCG 海上傷亡調查後該怎麼做 。