The Cargo Letter
|
The Cargo Letter |
|
Section A: Section: Trade, Financial & Inland News|
Section B: FF World Air News |
Section C: FF World Ocean News | Section D: FF in Cyberspace |
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
We salute the publication of our friend Sam Ignarski whose weekly "Bow Wave" publication has just featured the contribution of Doug Webster in Kuala Lumpur for this updated account of the force of human history on transport. Now we know why rails have a gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches! How did that strange number come to be? Not science -- but history.
The U.S. standard railroad gauge (width between the 2 rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That is an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, & the U.S. railroads were built by English expatriates. Why did the English build them like that?
Because the 1st rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that is the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building horse drawn wagons which used that wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
If they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that is the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads?
The 1st long distance roads in Europe (& England) were built by Imperial Rome for the legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots 1st formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels.
Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The U.S. standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot, the width of 2 horses' rears. Science had nothing to do with it!
Subscribe to "Bow Wave" :
www.wavyline.com/
Deweert v. Stevedoring Services
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Nov. 29, 2001
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the ALJ calculated Petitioner's wage earning
capacity by averaging his actual wages from the date of injury to the present
and concluded that the resulting figure was higher than Petitioner's
pre-injury average weekly wage and that Petitioner had not suffered a loss in
wage-earning capacity, thus the award of only a nominal sum of US$1 per week
for Petitioner's lost wages claim was justified.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thdeweert.pdf
Sanko Steamship v. United States
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Nov. 29, 2001
Suits in Admiralty Act/Federal Tort Claims Act: the district court's finding
that the United States was immune from suit under the Flood Control Act, 33
U.S.C. § 702, for a failure to warn of a shoal in the Sacramento Deepwater
Ship Channel is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in view of the
Supreme Court's decision in Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425
(2001), which established a more restrictive test for determining sovereign
immunity.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thsanko.pdf
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. Seabulk Marine
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 26, 2001
Marine Insurance: the "General Third Party Liabilities" clause of builder's
risk policy did not cover claims between the two principal assureds under the
policy and the cross liabilities clause of the policy did not transform them
into third-party claims, thus the underwriter was not responsible for the
defense costs in a suit between the principal assureds arising out of a
dispute related to the construction of a ship.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thseabulk.html
Owens v. Seariver Marine
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 26, 2001 (Revised)
Jones Act: the definitions of seamen under the Jones Act and under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") are separate and independent of each other;
under the FLSA, work is seaman's work if it is rendered primarily as an aid
in the operation of a vessel as a means of transportation; because the
primary purpose of Plaintiff's position was to load and unload petroleum from
barges, he was not a seaman for purposes of the FLSA's seaman's exclusion and
could therefore claim under the Act's maximum hour and overtime provisions.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thowens.html
Pool Co. v. Cooper
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 20, 2001
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the formalized claim withdrawal provision of
20 C.F.R. § 702.225(a) did not prevent the claimant from amending his claim
at the hearing, but because the scope of the amendment was in doubt, the
matter would be remanded so that the ALJ may resolve whether the claimant
effectively withdrew his claim to compensation for the period of February 28,
1994 to March 3, 1994.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thpoolco.html
United States v. Bustos-Useche
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 13, 2001
International Law: persons charged with a crime under the Maritime Drug Law
Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903, do not have standing to raise issues
of international law, thus the defendant could not argue lack of jurisdiction
based on the legitimacy of the flag nation's consent to the enforcement of US
law on the Panamanian vessel in international waters, which could only be
raised by Panama; Criminal Law: defendant's jurisdictional argument that
Panama did not consent to enforcement of US law on the Vessel until after
drugs were found on board, thus nullifying the district court's jurisdiction,
also fails since the only statutory prerequisite to jurisdiction under
section 1903(c)(1)(C) is that the flag nation consent to the enforcement of
United States law before trial.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thbustos.html
Alter Barge v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
November 8, 2001
Limitation of Liability Act: although the personal injury claimant filed his
claim late in the limitation proceeding, he was not barred since cause was
shown (his explanation met the minimal cause requirement) and permission to
file late claims is freely granted so long as the limitation proceeding is
ongoing and the late claim will not prejudice other parties.
www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/7thalterbarge.html
Please click below for other sections:
Section A: Section: Trade, Financial & Inland News|
Section B: FF World Air News |
Section C: FF World Ocean News | Section D: FF in Cyberspace |
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
The Cargo Letter Correspondents:
Michael S. McDaniel, Esq., Editor
(Countryman & McDaniel).
Cameron W. Roberts, Esq. (Countryman & McDaniel).
Written from wire stories, the Associated Press, Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]