An aspect of tanker operations that seldom comes into dispute is the problem of determining liability for the contamination of one or more refined products when two or more such products are carried on a tanker voyage. Multiple cargo situations usually develop in the case of tankers that load several products at refineries for transportation to distribution terminals in consuming centres. These products for the most part are various grades of gasolines, jet fuels, diesel and light fuel oils in addition to napthas and lubricating oils.

There are numerous vessels that regularly transport from six to ten or more of these products on each voyage. In most cases the characteristics of each item of cargo are such that they can not be mingled with any of the other products on board the vessel without damaging the marketability of one or more products. In spite of the complexity of the problem, it is interesting to note that when such an event occurred in 1969 and was brought to arbitration in New York in 1972, the principal similar case cited was a Southern California District Court decision sent down in 1945 and affirmed by the Circuit Court in 1946.

While the provisions of the charter-parties covering responsibility for the safe care of the cargo in these two cases were identical, the decision in one instance was in favour of the charterers and in the other, in favour of the owner. The finding of liability in each instance was based on the diligence exhibited by the various parties to prevent the damage in the first instance and then to minimize the loss when a contamination was or should have been suspected. Since a majority of complex cargoes are carried in vessels operated within the same family of companies as the shipper, the resolution of many cargo damage problems is handled as an internal corporate matter and does not become part of the law.

On the other hand, it is of more than passing interest, in view of the vast tonnages of refined products carried on board non-captive vessels each year, that it was necessary to go back to 1945 to find a precedent to cite in 1972.

In the cases discussed here both charter-parties incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and were otherwise similar in the obligations placed on each party.

The earlier decision was The Egg Harbor case, Standard Oil Company of California v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 100 (S.D. Cal, 1945). In this case the vessel loaded approximately half a cargo of diesel furnace oil in tanks 5, 6, 7 and 8 at San Pedro, California, and the other half cargo of gasoline in tanks 2, 3 and 9 at El Segundo, California, for discharge at Point Wells, Washington. Cargo separation between products was by means of double cross over valves operated by wheels on deck connected by rods to the valves in the bottom of the tank. At the loading terminals, as each tank was loaded, the valves were closed and a lashing was placed around the valve handle and secured to the valve stand or adjunct valve wheel to prevent accidental opening.