The term “Seaworthiness” is perhaps used indiscriminately. Strictly speaking a vessel is seaworthy if she is properly built and maintained to face and endure the rigours of the service for which she is intended. “Cargo worthiness” follows initial seaworthiness of the hull, but also implies seaworthiness in relation to the functions to be performed. A ship can be seaworthy with one cargo and unseaworthy with another. Her cargo worthiness may be impaired by reason of being unsuitable for the goods to be carried. Thus a rusty bulkhead in a vessel which is to carry grain would make the ship unseaworthy, although she would be perfectly seaworthy in that condition if carrying coal or boxed merchandise.

Therefore, a ship is seaworthy when she is efficient at the material time, as a means of carriage fit for the contemplated voyage. It is not only the hull, machinery and tackle which must be in proper order but the ship must also be fit for the intended cargo, and suitable for the voyage, i.e., ballasted if necessary, bunkered prudently and manned with a competent crew.

It is well known to every ship surveyor that there is not a single vessel afloat which could not be prevented from sailing because of some imperfection in her absolute standards of seaworthiness, but it is unnecessary to bring into this discussion matters which effect the vessel yet are not directly related to damage to cargo. I shall therefore not delve into matters such as the lack of charts, of Notices to Mariners, breaches of safety of life regulations, the certification of officers and crew and the degree of their training and instruction, etc. Liability for such shortcomings is almost undefendable.

I do not propose to deal with deck cargoes. Although stability problems arise with top hamper, the true test of seaworthiness lies with staunchness of the hull up to and including the weather deck, the equipment of the ship and her appurtenances.

The Hague Rules have reduced the common law obligation which demands a seaworthy ship as an absolute undertaking. The Hague Rules only impose the duty of “exercising due diligence”. The distinction is that under common law, the excuse of latent defect, even if such is undiscoverable, is not admitted. Under the Hague Rules the owners’ liability exists only if the latent defect can be discovered by exercising due diligence. Since absolute seaworthiness cannot be achieved in practice, this article is limited to a review of the exercise of due diligence before and at the commencement of the voyage, and to quoting some of the exceptions allowed under the Rules.