浅析船舶不能安全离开的港口安全问题
文/ 中远香港航运 ALEX（航顾委 委员）
【摘要】航运实务中，经常碰到船舶在锚地起不了锚的情况，本文尝试通过对案例的分析，来解释说明一下，如果是因为港口海底底质或固有的障碍物等问题导致了船舶收不起锚，不能安全离开的情况，则这个港口对该船而言是不安全的。
【关键词】海底底质、安全港口、异常情况、离开
day by day什么意思
在现实情况中，我们很多船长甚至船东在碰到船舶在锚地走锚，或者起不了锚的时候，基本上都是在找自己的问题，是不是锚抛得不好，或者怀疑船上海图没有更新导致自己船的锚链被不明障碍物缠绕；或者在航道中搁浅了，船长往往都第一时间感觉闯祸了，很少会去想这个港口，锚地到底对本船来说是不是安全的。船东在很多时候也都自认倒霉，很少去找租家索赔。
关于安全港口的权威定义，可以参法官Sellers在The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 atpage 131：
A port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period oftime, the particular ship can reach it, u it and return from it without, inthe abnce of some abnormal occurrence, being expod to danger which cannotbe avoided by good navigation and amanship.
英文音标
即，如果没有异常情况发生，虽然有良好的船舶驾驶技术仍不能安全地驶入、挂靠及离开一个港口，则这个港口是不安全的。
这种和天气、自然灾害、政治方面的因素造成的港口不安全不一样，这些需考虑到这些导致港口不安全的到底是不是异常情况。因航道水深不足，锚地有障碍物，或者安全旋回圈不足等等由于港口本身的问题导致的不安全，只要是凭良好船艺不能安全驶入、挂靠及离开，则这个港口就是不安全的。
现以FK轮在直布罗陀加油期间，收不起锚导致最终弃锚的案例来简要分析一下，这种情况是否能说直布罗陀港是不安全港口，从而船东可以因为租家违反租约中安全港口的保证，找租家索赔损失。
maier
FK轮执行一个TCT航次，租家中途安排到Gibraltar加油。10月10日该轮结束海上航行并于
名人访谈0255抵达引航站上引水，0312抛锚，8节锚链入水，0320引水离船。加完油后，在交管中心通知船舶可以起锚离港，1924发现锚起不来，怀疑被海底不明障碍物缠绕。船方无论如何都没有办法摆脱障碍物，最终迫不得已，11日1500船方决定弃锚离港。船东随后委托供应商，买了一个新锚，运到卸港给船安上。前后涉及到停租从10日1924到11日1500，0.817天的租金约9,300USD；船东委托代理，买锚及锚链，运输、安装等等的费用约58,400USD。
很显然，该轮无法离开Gibraltar，直接违反了安全港口中的returnfrom it，因此Gibraltar港对于该轮而言是不安全港口。由于租家违反了合同中关于安全港口的保证，因此船东可以找租家索赔所有费用；同时这些时间耽误事由于租家因自己违约造成的，租家不可以停租。
在众多现成的判例面前，已经有既定的法律，我们没有必要再去解释到底什么才算是安全港口，只需要看针对特定的情况，这些特定的安全保证有没有被违反。
如法官Roskill在The Hermine案中说的：
…
wasteIt is now quite unnecessary, in theunsafe port or unsafe berth cas, to refer back to the multitude of earlierdecisions…There is the law clearly stated. What has to be determined by thetribunal of fact in each ca is whether, on the particular facts, theparticular warranty of safety has or has not been broken.
先来看看几个案例，再来具体分析Gibraltar锚地对于该轮而言是不是安全的。
怎样学习服装设计
一、Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc. ( The Mary Lou )
在该案中，租家安排船舶到新奥尔良区域的Rerve装粮，在2月19到22日共装货33,000吨，在补充燃油后，离港吃水为33' 9''，当局公布的最大推荐开航吃水为34'，但最终船舶在SW Pass那搁浅。法官认为没有证据显示船长和引航员在航行方面存在过失，鉴于1973,1974年连续的洪水可能导致河道淤泥增多吃水变浅；虽然出事地点在Rerve港的港外，但同时考虑到SW Pass及密西西比河乃通往Rerve的必经之路，不应该分开考虑。最终判Rerve港对于Mary Lou该轮而言不是安全港口，租家违反了安全港口保证。
The Arbitrators upheld the owner’s claim for damages. They concluded that there was no
oem是什么sufficient basis on the facts for finding the master or pilot negligent in relation to theg rounding of the vesl. They found that the succession of the 1973 and early1974 floods gave ri to vere shoaling in the river and held that the port of Rerve was unsafe for the Mary Louand that the charterers were in breach of the safe port warranty contained in the charter-party.
dividend
The charterers proceeded to the Commercial Courton a Special Ca and on a Notice of Motion requesting the Arbitrators to findfurther facts.
Mr. Justice Mustillgiving judgment on April 9 held that the arbitrators’ award should stand anddismisd the Notice of Motion. In addition to upholding the arbitrators’conclusion that Rerve was unsafe the Judge dealt with various relevant issuesof law. (1) Test of safety. The Judge said that the judgment in the Eastern City(especially that of Sellers L.J.) and in the Hermine (especially that of Roskill L.J.) were binding on theCourt and that it was unnecessary to go back to earlier decisions. It was clearthat most unsafe port cas now turned on questions of fact and where the issuewas not immediately resolved by referenc
hooke to the facts any new point must fallwithin the principles of Lord Justice Sellers’ judgment. (2) Time of breach.Reviewing the authorities the Judge held that this was a question to be judgedat the time of using the port and not solely at the time of giving the order togo to that port. He did not feel it necessary in the ca to decide if therewere two breaches or a single continuous breach. (3) Abnormal hazards. It wasnot always the ca that damages would be awarded to the owner if a ship wentto a port and suffered damage. The choice of a port does not involve the choiceof an unexpected event unless that is an attribute or characteristic of theport. (4) Temporary hazards. A temporary hazard which is an attribute of theport could lead to that port being unsafe. (5) Careful navigation. The Judgeindicated that this was a question of fact and the conduct of the master mustbe considered. If he deliberately ignores a known risk or exercis no propercare the chain of causation might be broken. (6) Geographical limits. If theposition of the problem is outside the port and there is no alternative meansof access there would be no ground for a distinction between the lack of safetyinside the port and outside the port. The principle of the vesl being able toreach the port and return from it without being expod to undue risk must beapplied to both situations. (7) Reasonable vicinity.
mzdThe Judge found thatthere was no authority for the proposition that the location of the problemmakes any difference.
Applying the aboveprinciples to the grounding of the MaryLou , the Judge found that the port was unsafe. The Arbitrators may havefound that it was possible to avoid the risk but they have also found that theport was not safe. The Arbitrators have not misdirected themlves and thedecision was wholly consistent. The system at New Orleans failed not in a transient mannernor in a manner which was wholly exceptional nor wholly unpredictable.
The Notice of Motion was also rejected.
这个也是非常典型的，船舶不能安全离开的情况下判港口不安全案例，纵然出事地点远在港界的百里之外。
关于这个必经之路，在之前的文中也有提到，30万吨船满载的时候去鲅鱼圈卸，辽东湾浅滩那也是必经之路，如果船舶无论如何都不能安全通过的话，这鲅鱼圈港对该船而言就不
是安全港口。鉴于合同安全港口条款里加上了free of risks，因此不管任何原因（船东方面的除外），导致船舶不能顺利抵达鲅鱼圈港口，都直接导致租家违反安全港口保证，尽管辽东湾浅滩也不在鲅鱼圈港界内。
