Salvage

Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 311-316

  Friedell, Steven F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034371755     PISSN: 00222410     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. See Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 240 (1804); The Henry Ewbank, 11 F. Cas. 1166 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 6,376); The Fusilier, 167 Eng. Rep. 391 (Adm. 1864), aff'd, 167 Eng. Rep. 395 (P.C. 1865). Cf. The Boston, 3 F. Cas. 932 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 1,673) (deviation to save life does not constitute a deviation that would oust an insurance policy).
2. See Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 240 (1804); The Henry Ewbank, 11 F. Cas. 1166 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 6,376); The Fusilier, 167 Eng. Rep. 391 (Adm. 1864), aff'd, 167 Eng. Rep. 395 (P.C. 1865). Cf. The Boston, 3 F. Cas. 932 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 1,673) (deviation to save life does not constitute a deviation that would oust an insurance policy).
3. See Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 240 (1804); The Henry Ewbank, 11 F. Cas. 1166 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 6,376); The Fusilier, 167 Eng. Rep. 391 (Adm. 1864), aff'd, 167 Eng. Rep. 395 (P.C. 1865). Cf. The Boston, 3 F. Cas. 932 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 1,673) (deviation to save life does not constitute a deviation that would oust an insurance policy).
4. See Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 240 (1804); The Henry Ewbank, 11 F. Cas. 1166 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 6,376); The Fusilier, 167 Eng. Rep. 391 (Adm. 1864), aff'd, 167 Eng. Rep. 395 (P.C. 1865). Cf. The Boston, 3 F. Cas. 932 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 1,673) (deviation to save life does not constitute a deviation that would oust an insurance policy).
5. See Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 240 (1804); The Henry Ewbank, 11 F. Cas. 1166 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 6,376); The Fusilier, 167 Eng. Rep. 391 (Adm. 1864), aff'd, 167 Eng. Rep. 395 (P.C. 1865). Cf. The Boston, 3 F. Cas. 932 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) (No. 1,673) (deviation to save life does not constitute a deviation that would oust an insurance policy).
6. American courts routinely recite the six factors announced in The Blackwall, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 1 (1869). See, e.g., Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V Ja Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 1998 AMC 2383 (5th Cir. 1998). The six factors are: 1. The labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service. 2. The promptitude, skill, and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the property. 3. The value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service, and the danger to which such property was exposed. 4. The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril. 5. The value of the property saved. 6. The degree of danger from which the property was rescued.
7. American courts routinely recite the six factors announced in The Blackwall, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 1 (1869). See, e.g., Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V Ja Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 1998 AMC 2383 (5th Cir. 1998). The six factors are: 1. The labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service. 2. The promptitude, skill, and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the property. 3. The value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service, and the danger to which such property was exposed. 4. The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril. 5. The value of the property saved. 6. The degree of danger from which the property was rescued.
8. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
9. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
10. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
11. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
12. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
13. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
14. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
15. One court added the "skill and effort of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment." Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 809 F. Supp. 440, 443, 1993 AMC 1042 (E.D. La. 1992). Another court has added the factor of whether the salvors worked to protect the historical and archaeological value of the wreck and the items salved. Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450, 1992 AMC 2705 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000 (1993). In an earlier day, courts recited three factors: the service rendered, the risk of the salvor, and the value of the property saved. See, e.g., The Georgiana, 10 F. Cas. 249 (D. Mass. 1866) (No. 5,355); Taylor v. Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, 23 F. Cas. 806 (D.S.C. 1801) (No. 13,807). Other courts before The Blackwall used four factors: 1st, enterprise in the sailors in rendering assistance in tempestuous weather, and at risk of life. Secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued. Thirdly, the degree of labour and skill displayed by the sailors, and the time they are occupied. And fourthly, the value of the property saved. Robson v. The Huntress, 20 F. Cas. 1060, 1062 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1851) (No. 11,971). See also W. Marvin, A Treatise on the Law of Wreck and Salvage 107 (1858). One might suggest additional factors: other business that the salvor lost, whether other salvors were available, and the value of cargo on board the salving vessel. Arguably these factors are already included in the other lists. One may wonder whether the additional factors make any difference in result. They might focus the court on special factors that would tend to increase the award. They might also tend to diminish the effect of the other factors. Professors Gilmore and Black suggested that judges recite the factors and then "pull an arbitrary figure out of the air." G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 563 (2d ed. 1975).
16. See generally Landes & Posner, Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans, and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism, 7 J. Leg. Stud. 83 (1978).
17. Merchant Shipping Act 1995 § 224 and Schedule 11, Part II, 1 5; Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, 57-58 Vict. ch. 60 §§ 544-545.
18. See, e.g., Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C., c. S-9, § 450; Maritime Transport Amendment Act 1999 § 23 (New Zealand); Navigation Act 1912, § 315 as amended by the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1995 (Australia). Other countries provide some relief patterned on the United Kingdom's legislation but lack a provision for payment of discretionary governmental awards. See, e.g., Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, § 402, 14 India A.I.R. Manual 452.
19. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 729.
20. In re Yamashita-Shinnihon Kisen, 305 F. Supp. 796, 1969 AMC 2102 (D. Or. 1969); The Eastland, 262 F. 535 (N.D. Ill. 1919), aff'd without opinion (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mattocks v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 254 U.S. 644 (1920).
21. In re Yamashita-Shinnihon Kisen, 305 F. Supp. 796, 1969 AMC 2102 (D. Or. 1969); The Eastland, 262 F. 535 (N.D. Ill. 1919), aff'd without opinion (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mattocks v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 254 U.S. 644 (1920).
22. In re Yamashita-Shinnihon Kisen, 305 F. Supp. 796, 1969 AMC 2102 (D. Or. 1969); The Eastland, 262 F. 535 (N.D. Ill. 1919), aff'd without opinion (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mattocks v. Great Lakes Towing Co., 254 U.S. 644 (1920).
23. St. Paul Marine Transp. Corp. v. Cerro Sales Corp., 313 F. Supp. 377, 1970 AMC 1742 (D. Haw. 1970); The Eastland, supra note 8.
24. St. Paul Marine Transp. Corp. v. Cerro Sales Corp., 313 F. Supp. 377, 1970 AMC 1742 (D. Haw. 1970); The Eastland, supra note 8.
25. In re Ta Chi Nav. (Panama) Corp. S.A., 583 F. Supp. 1322, 1985 AMC 1367 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); The Eastland, supra note 8.
26. In re Ta Chi Nav. (Panama) Corp. S.A., 583 F. Supp. 1322, 1985 AMC 1367 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); The Eastland, supra note 8.
27. See Friedell, Compensation and Reward for Saving Life at Sea, 77 Mich. L. Rev. 1218, 1240-63 (1979).
28. To satisfy British demands that their more liberal life salvage scheme not be affected by the treaty, the report accompanying the treaty provided, "chaque nation reste libre de donner aux sauveteurs-vie des droits plus grands ou plus précis." Procès-verbaux du Conférence Maritime 102 (1910) ("each nation remains free to give life salvors greater or more specific rights"). See Friedell, supra note 11, at 1244 n.91.
29. To satisfy British demands that their more liberal life salvage scheme not be affected by the treaty, the report accompanying the treaty provided, "chaque nation reste libre de donner aux sauveteurs-vie des droits plus grands ou plus précis." Procès-verbaux du Conférence Maritime 102 (1910) ("each nation remains free to give life salvors greater or more specific rights"). See Friedell, supra note 11, at 1244 n.91.
30. The Mulhouse, 17 F. Cas. 962 (S.D. Fla. 1859) (No. 9,910) (Marvin, J.) (where one salvor saves life and another saves property, the life salvor is entitled to salvage from the property saved). A fuller report of the case is contained in a pamphlet, Rigby v. The Cargo and Materials from the Wrecked Ship Mulhouse (1859), that is in the library of the United States Supreme Court.
31. The Mulhouse, 17 F. Cas. 962 (S.D. Fla. 1859) (No. 9,910) (Marvin, J.) (where one salvor saves life and another saves property, the life salvor is entitled to salvage from the property saved). A fuller report of the case is contained in a pamphlet, Rigby v. The Cargo and Materials from the Wrecked Ship Mulhouse (1859), that is in the library of the United States Supreme Court.
32. See, e.g., The Fusilier, supra note 1; The Cargo ex Schiller, 2 P.D. 145 (C.A. 1877).
33. See, e.g., The Fusilier, supra note 1; The Cargo ex Schiller, 2 P.D. 145 (C.A. 1877).
34. Merchant Shipping Act 1894, § 544(2). This section has not been repealed by the 1995 act.
35. Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Schedule 11, Part II, ¶ 5.
36. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Nav. Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830, 1977 AMC 283 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 859 (1977).
37. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Nav. Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830, 1977 AMC 283 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 859 (1977).
38. Recovery of expenses is allowed if the rescuing ship fulfills the employer's maintenance and cure obligation. In re Ta Chi, supra note 10.
39. See, e.g., The Emblem, 8 F. Cas. 611 (D. Me. 1840) (No. 4,434); Taylor, supra note 3; The Aid, 166 Eng. Rep. 30 (Adm. 1822).
40. See, e.g., The Emblem, 8 F. Cas. 611 (D. Me. 1840) (No. 4,434); Taylor, supra note 3; The Aid, 166 Eng. Rep. 30 (Adm. 1822).
41. See, e.g., The Emblem, 8 F. Cas. 611 (D. Me. 1840) (No. 4,434); Taylor, supra note 3; The Aid, 166 Eng. Rep. 30 (Adm. 1822).
42. Gilmore & Black, supra note 3, at 570. Justice Story wrote, "[Salvage] offers a premium, by way of honorary reward, for prompt and ready assistance to human sufferings; for a bold and fearless intrepidity; and for that affecting chivalry, which forgets itself in an anxiety to save property, as well as life." The Henry Ewbank, supra note 1, at 1170.
43. Gilmore & Black, supra note 3, at 570. Justice Story wrote, "[Salvage] offers a premium, by way of honorary reward, for prompt and ready assistance to human sufferings; for a bold and fearless intrepidity; and for that affecting chivalry, which forgets itself in an anxiety to save property, as well as life." The Henry Ewbank, supra note 1, at 1170.
44. The Blaireau, supra note 1, at 266; The Fusilier, supra note 1.
45. The Blaireau, supra note 1, at 266; The Fusilier, supra note 1.
46. The Fusilier, supra note 1.
47. See, e.g., In re Ta Chi, supra note 10; Markakis v. S/S Volendam, 486 F. Supp. 1103, 1110 n.28, 1980 AMC 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Barge 592-Delroy, 1938 AMC 57 (E.D. Pa. 1937).
48. See, e.g., In re Ta Chi, supra note 10; Markakis v. S/S Volendam, 486 F. Supp. 1103, 1110 n.28, 1980 AMC 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Barge 592-Delroy, 1938 AMC 57 (E.D. Pa. 1937).
49. See, e.g., In re Ta Chi, supra note 10; Markakis v. S/S Volendam, 486 F. Supp. 1103, 1110 n.28, 1980 AMC 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Barge 592-Delroy, 1938 AMC 57 (E.D. Pa. 1937).
50. The statute was entitled "A bill to harmonize the national law of salvage with the provisions of the International convention. . . ." See also S. Rep. No. 477, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1912) (noting only a few substantial changes in American and British salvage law made by the treaty).
51. See Art. 8 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, Brussels, Sept. 23, 1910, 37 Stat. 1658, T.S. 576.
52. The text of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 is reprinted in 3A Benedict on Admiralty, App. B and 20 J. Mar. L. & Com. 589 (1989). The Convention was signed in London on April 28, 1989; received the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate on October 29, 1991; and entered into force in the United States on July 14, 1996.
53. The text of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 is reprinted in 3A Benedict on Admiralty, App. B and 20 J. Mar. L. & Com. 589 (1989). The Convention was signed in London on April 28, 1989; received the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate on October 29, 1991; and entered into force in the United States on July 14, 1996.
54. The only substantive change is that article 16 of the 1989 convention also allows the life salvor a fair share of payments awarded for "preventing or minimizing damage to the environment."
55. International Convention on Salvage, Article 13(1)(e) (emphasis added).
56. See, e.g., The Bremen, 111 F. 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1901) (awarding less than $20 per person saved).
57. See, e.g., The Emblem, supra note 19. See also Reaves, Captain Defended on Refugees; UN Official: U.S. Ship Stopped When Others Wouldn't, Chi. Trib., Aug. 12, 1988, at 4 (describing the plight of the Vietnamese boat people).
58. See, e.g., The Emblem, supra note 19. See also Reaves, Captain Defended on Refugees; UN Official: U.S. Ship Stopped When Others Wouldn't, Chi. Trib., Aug. 12, 1988, at 4 (describing the plight of the Vietnamese boat people).
59. See supra note 12.
60. See supra notes 5 and 6.