在航运实践中，承运人通常会在提单中记载“不知条款”，当运送的货物受损时，承运人能否援引“不知条款”来抗辩免责？跟随我们的脚步，一起来了解一下相关的典型案例吧！

Hello everyone, welcome to the “Voice of Judge”. In international maritime trade, the bill of lading is a crucial document. But what happens when this document contains clauses like “weight, size, quality of the goods are unknown” and the goods arrive damaged or short? Can the shipping company simply point to these clauses to avoid liability?

大家好，欢迎来到海法之声。在国际海上货物贸易中，提单是一份至关重要的单据。但当这份单据载有“货物重量、尺寸、品质等不知”的条款，并且货物又发生损毁或短少时，会发生什么？承运人能否仅凭这些条款就免除责任？

Recently, our court heard such a case, which provides significant clarity on the responsibilities of carriers, especially under “Unknown Clause”. The case involved a Chinese company, Zhonglin Company, which purchased over 36,000 tons of pine logs from Uruguay. The goods were loaded onto the S ship, owned by the defendant, S Corporation.The ship’s captain issued six clean loaded bills of lading, meaning the goods were received in apparent good order. The bills noted the specific number of logs, but also included an “Unknown Clause”, stating the carrier didn’t know the exact weight, size, or quality, quantity, condition, content and value. Trouble began almost immediately. Shortly after departure, the vessel ran aground, damaging its steering gear. It had to return to departure port for repairs. The entire cargo of pine logs was unloaded and stored in a local open yard for about six months before being reloaded and finally sent to China. When the ship finally arrived at the discharge port, the Zhonglin Company, together with S Corporation and Charterer carried out on-site joint sampling work. The on-site sawing inspection found that there was decay, mildew and broken wood. The Zhonglin company, facing massive losses, sued the carrier, S Corporation, for compensation.

近期，我院审理了这样一起案件，该案对厘清“不知条款”下承运人责任具有重要价值。该案涉及一家中国公司——中林公司，从乌拉圭购买了超过3.6万吨松木原木。这批货物被装载到被告S公司所属的S轮上。该S轮船长签发了六套清洁已装船提单，意味着收到的货物表面状况良好。提单上记载了原木的具体根数，但也包含了一项“不知条款”，声明承运人不知悉货物的确切重量、尺寸、品质、数量、状况、内容和价值。问题马上就出现了。启航后不久，船舶就发生了搁浅，导致舵机损坏。船舶不得不返回起运港进行修理。全部松原木货物被卸下，在当地露天堆场存放了约六个月之久，之后才重新装船，最终运往中国。当船舶最终抵达卸货港时，中林公司与S公司及租船方三方共同进行了现场联合检验。现场锯检发现货物存在腐朽、霉变及断木等情况。面对巨额损失，中林公司起诉了承运人S公司并要求赔偿。

Nanjing Maritime Court carefully examined the facts and the law and then held that the “Unknown Clause” couldn’t shield the carrier in this instance. Although the bill of lading recorded the clause of “weight, size, quality, quantity, condition, content and value are unknown”, the logs involved in the case were loaded in bulk, and the bill of lading had described “good external condition” and marked the specific number of roots. The defendant was also fully capable of counting the quantity. In spite of that, after arriving at the port, it was found that the appearance of the goods was mildew and fractured, and the number of roots was short after the count. In the absence of other evidence to prove that the goods had quality defects before loading, it should be presumed that the damage was caused by improper transportation by the carrier. Moreover, the S ship ran aground while leaving the port and caused damage to the rudder. During its return to the port of embarkation for repairs, the pine logs in question were put into the local yard and piled up in the open air for half a year. The carrier had no special protection and covering treatment for the goods, so the S Corporation should be liable for the damages during the period of its care. Indeed, the bill of lading in the case stated the part of the cargo was “loaded on deck and at the shipper’s risk, and the carrier wasn’t liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom”. However, as the pine logs involved in the case didn’t strictly distinguish between deck cargo and cabin cargo when unloading the cargo after arriving at the port, resulting in the inability to distinguish the scope of exemption. The Court finally determined that the defendant was liable for the 68.5% of the loss and damage according to the proportion of deck cargo to all goods.

南京海事法院经仔细审查事实与法律后认为，本案中的“不知条款”不能使承运人免责。尽管提单中记载了“重量、大小、质量、数量、状况、内容和价值不知”的条款，但案涉原木系散装装载，并且提单已载明“外表状况良好”以及标注了具体根数。同时，被告也完全有能力对数量进行清点。到港后仍发现货物外观霉变、断裂，经清点根数也出现短少。在没有其他证据证明货物在装船前已经存在品质瑕疵的情况下，应推定是承运人运输不当导致货损。此外，S轮在离港时即发生搁浅并造成舵叶损伤，在其返回装货港修理的过程中案涉松木被放入当地堆场露天堆放长达半年之久。承运人并没有对货物进行特别的防护遮盖处理，S公司应对其照管期间发生的损害承担责任。诚然，案涉提单载明部分货物“装载于甲板上，并由托运人承担风险，承运人对由此产生的任何灭失或损坏不承担责任”。但由于案涉松原木在到港卸货时并未严格区分甲板货与舱内货，导致无法区分免责范围。法院依照甲板货占所有货物的比例，最终认定被告对68.5%的损失承担赔偿责任。

This judgment brings typical significance to the carriage of goods by sea. It provides a good model for a better understanding and interpretation of “Unknown Clause” under the bill of lading in terms of carriage of logs. It’s a special provision under the bill of lading by which carriers could exempt from the responsibility for cargo checking. Article 75 of the Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that if the carrier has had no reasonable means of checking, the carrier may make a note in the bill of lading. In light of this provision, the premise for the application of “Unknown Clause” should be “having no reasonable means of checking”. In this case, the transported logs were loaded in bulk, and the bills of lading has marked the specific number of roots, therefore the carrier was also fully capable of counting the quantity. However, the carrier failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the short quantity, and the carrier had improper care as the logs in question were unloaded from the ship and piled up in the open air for half a year during the transport. The Court eventually held that the carrier wasn’t entitled to exemption from liability by invoking the “Unknown Clause”. Overall, this case has a certain guiding meaning in promoting the order of shipping market, given that the judgment accurately defines the applicable premise of “Unknown Clause” and reasonably determines the carrier’s duty of care for cargo.

这一判决对海上货物运输具有典型意义。它为更好地理解和解释提单下关于原木运输的“不知条款”提供了良好范例。“不知条款”是海运提单中承运人为规避货物检验责任设计的特殊条款。《中华人民共和国海商法》第七十五条明确规定，承运人没有适当的方法核对提单记载的，可以在提单上批注。根据该规定,“不知条款”适用的前提应是“没有适当方法核对”。本案中，运输的原木为散装装载，提单也已标明具体根数，承运人完全有能力清点数量。承运人未能对货物短量作出合理说明，并且在运输途中将案涉原木卸船露天堆放长达半年，存在照管不当。法院最终认定，承运人无权援引“不知条款”免除责任。总之，该判决对规范航运市场秩序具有指引作用，由于其明晰了“不知条款”的适用前提，并且厘清了承运人的管货责任。

That’s the “Voice of Judge” for today. Thank you for watching and listening.

今天的海法之声就到这里。感谢您的收看和收听。