Hartley v Ponsonby

Background

The action arose out of an agreement made between the master of a ship and the plaintiff, one of the mariners serving on board the ship under an earlier engagement. The plaintiff sued upon that later agreement, the question being whether he was already bound by his original engagement to perform the work in question.

The state of the ship

The ship came to be short-handed, the number of her crew being so reduced that for the ship to go to sea with so few hands was dangerous to life. The labour that would have been imposed upon those remaining on board was excessive. The jury found that the ship was unseaworthy and that, in those circumstances, it was not reasonable to require the mariners to go to sea.

The fresh agreement

The mariners not being bound to proceed, the master hired them on the best terms he could make, and a fresh bargain was struck with the plaintiff. The jury found that this was a free bargain. The captain made it without coercion, although the plaintiff may have taken advantage of his position to make a hard bargain.

The dispute

The questions raised were whether there was any consideration for the fresh agreement, given the plaintiff's original engagement, and whether the agreement was vitiated by duress or was objectionable on grounds of public policy. Reference was made to the observations of Dr. Lushington in The Araminta (Feran) (1 Spinks' Ecc. & Adm. Rep. 229) and to Harris v. Carter (3 E. & B. 559).

Procedural history

The case was tried before a jury, questions being left to them, the third of which was answered in terms importing that for the ship to go to sea with so few hands was dangerous to life. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. A rule was afterwards obtained, it being contended among other things that the verdict was against the weight of evidence; the evidence at the trial had been conflicting, and Erle J., who had tried the case, was not dissatisfied with the verdict. The rule was argued before Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge J., Erle J. and Crompton J.

Outcome

The rule was discharged and the verdict stood. Lord Campbell C.J. held that, the jury's answer importing that going to sea with so few hands was dangerous to life, it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to perform the work and he was in the condition of a free man; there was therefore a consideration for the contract, which the captain had made without coercion, so that it was a voluntary agreement upon sufficient consideration, and the decision would not conflict with any former decisions. Coleridge J. was of the same opinion and for the same reasons, understanding the finding of the jury to be that the ship was unseaworthy and that, owing to the excessive labour which would be imposed, it was not reasonable to require the mariners to go to sea; if they were not bound to go they were free to make a new contract, the master was justified in hiring them on the best terms he could make, and there was no duress. Erle J. was of the same opinion, observing that there is a point of danger at which it becomes unreasonable for mariners to be required to go on, that this is a question for a jury, and that the mariners, not being bound to go on, were to all intents and purposes free and might make the best contract they could. Crompton J. also agreed, holding that the jury had found a free bargain, and that as regards public policy it would be very dangerous to lay down that, under all circumstances and at any risk of life, seamen are bound to proceed on a voyage; where, from a ship being short-handed, it would be unsafe for the seamen to go to sea, they become free to make any new contract that they like.