Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/69

RICHARDS V. HiNSEN. 61 �anything that denoted a leak, and he expressed the opinion , that it must have been donc by what is called blcwing — that is, that the bilge-water swashes up when the ship rolls ; and he added that it is a common tbing for bilge-water to blow up when the ship labors, as explained, and that it does not take much water to damage sheet iron. Few steamers have their ceiling caulked so as to be water-tight, and in ail cases where they do not it seems that the blowing of bilge-water through the seams of the ceiling is a common occurrence when the vessel rolls. Steamers, as well as sail ships, roU more or less on every such voyage, varying in degree with the state of the wind, the construction of the vessel, the manner in which she is loaded, and the means by which she is propelled. Even suppose that cases may arise where it would properly be held that blowing is a peril of navigation, within such an exception in a bill of lading, it is clear such a rule cannot be applied in this case, as it appears that the goods might have been protected from such damage by a reasonable foresight, care and prudence, the rule being that the carrier ought to take adequate measures to protect the cargo against a com- mon and ordinary occurence which might and ought to bave been foreseen. Bearse y.Ropes,! Sprague, 332. �Dangers of the seas, said Judge Story, whether understood in its most limited sense as importing only a loss by the natural accidents peculiar to that element, or whether under- stood in its more extended sense as including inevitable acci- dents upon that element, must still in either case be clearly understood to include only such losses as are of an extraordi-- nary nature, or arise from some irresistible force or some over- whelming power which cannot be guarded against by the ■ ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence. The Reeside, 2 Sum. 571. Hence it is that, if the loss occurs by a peril of the sea that might have been avoided by the exercise of any reasonable skill or diligence at the time when it occurred, it is not deemed to be in the sense of the phrase such a loss by the perils of the sea as will exempt the carrier from lia- bility. Btory on Bailments, (7th Ed.) § .512a; Nugent v. Smith, Law Eep. 1 G. P. D. 437; 3 Kent's Com. (12th Ed.) ��� �