Stowage Responsibility

What it does

A stowage clause settles who is responsible for planning and carrying out the stowage and trimming of the cargo, and who answers if it is done badly. Stowage affects both the safety of the ship, since poorly distributed or unsecured cargo can threaten stability, and the protection of the cargo itself, which can be damaged by bad stowage, so the allocation of this responsibility matters on two fronts.

The answer is bound up with the loading and discharging cost terms: under free-in-and-out stowed and trimmed terms the charterer controls and pays for stowage, while under liner terms the owner does. But the clause also addresses the owner's overriding responsibility for matters affecting the seaworthiness and safety of the ship, which is not simply handed over with the cargo-handling role.

Commercial effect

Where stowage responsibility sits decides who bears the cost of cargo damage caused by bad stowage and who must put right a stow that endangers the ship. If the charterer controls stowage under free-in-and-out stowed terms, it generally answers for stowage faults, whereas under liner terms more of that responsibility rests with the owner. The allocation therefore drives liability when cargo claims arise.

The complication is that even where the charterer performs stowage, the owner retains responsibility for the safety of the ship, so the master can intervene if a stow threatens stability. The clause is read alongside the seaworthiness obligation and the cargo-handling terms, because the division between the charterer's stowage role and the owner's irreducible safety duties is where many disputes are decided.

Owner's perspective

The owner is often content for the charterer to plan and pay for stowage under free-in-and-out stowed terms, because that removes the cost and much of the liability for cargo-handling faults. But the owner insists on retaining the master's authority over anything affecting the ship's safety, so that a stow which threatens stability or structure can be corrected regardless of who is nominally responsible.

The owner therefore wants the clause to draw a clear line: the charterer answers for stowage and trimming as a cargo-handling matter, while the owner keeps responsibility for seaworthiness and the safe condition of the ship. That division protects the owner from cargo-damage claims arising from a stow it did not control, without giving up its overriding duty to keep the vessel safe.

Charterer's perspective

The charterer that takes on stowage under free-in-and-out stowed terms gains control over the operation but also the responsibility for doing it properly, since bad stowage that damages cargo will generally fall on it. It must therefore ensure competent stevedoring and proper trimming, because the cost of getting it wrong is now its own rather than the owner's to absorb.

The charterer wants the boundary with the owner's duties drawn clearly, so that it is not blamed for cargo damage that actually flows from the ship's condition or the master's decisions on safety. It is mindful that the master can intervene on stability grounds, and it tries to ensure such intervention is confined to genuine safety matters rather than used to second-guess the charterer's commercial stowage choices.

Negotiation points

• Whether the charterer or the owner plans, performs, and pays for stowage and trimming.
• How stowage responsibility tracks the loading and discharging cost terms (FIOST versus liner).
• The owner's retained authority over stowage affecting the ship's stability and safety.
• The boundary between stowage faults (cargo handling) and unseaworthiness (the owner's duty).

Common variations

• Charterer responsible for stowage and trimming under free-in-and-out stowed terms.
• Owner responsible for stowage under liner terms as part of the freight.
• Charterer stows, with the master retaining authority over stability and safety.
• A stevedore-damage clause allocating responsibility for damage done during handling.