미국에 있어서 복합운송선하증권상의 Himalaya Clause의 해석에 관한 사례분석

A Case Analysis on the Interpretation of the Himalaya Clause under Combined Transport Bills of Lading in the U.S.

In the various shipping countries of the countries of the world a stipulation entitled the Himalaya Clause has been added to bills of lading so that the stevedore, the terminal operator and even a dry dock company may benefit by certain terms of the bill of lading. The clause in particular allows third party to enjoy the package limitation and the one-year delay for suit the Hague Rules. Permitting a stevedore not a party to a contract to benefit by that contract may be appealing to ocean carriers because it provides the stevedore with the same rights that a vessel owner has under law, but by throwing aside a basic principle of law, the door is left open to incongruity, abuse and, at times, injustice to persons who have contracted in good faith. The problem is exaggerated when the clause not only allows the stevedore to benefit by the package limitation but allows the stevedore to avoid liability altogether by a non-responsibility clause. The purpose of this paper aims to analyse the Norfolk Southern Railway case and to explore implications of this case in relation to the Himalaya Clause.