해상보험증권상(海上保險證券上) 'Perils of the Seas'에 관한 연구(硏究)

The Definition of the Expression 'Perils of the Seas' in Marine Policies

It is unsafe to attempt a complete definition of the expression 'perils of the seas', because in practice the question 'what is a peril of the seas' is inextricably woven up with the further question, 'was the loss proximately caused by the sea peril ?' Such casualties as stranding, collision and heavy weather appear with monotonous regularity in the daily reports, and are the obvious examples. However, what can be included in the term 'perils of the seas' seems to be inexhaustible, although most circumstances appear to have been covered by the Courts. Two cases heard in 1887 were instrumental in defining perils of the seas. In The Xantho Lord Herschell made the following remarks: "The term ... does not cover every accidents or casualty which may happen to the subject matter of insurance on the sea. It must be a peril 'of' the sea. Not every loss or damage of which the sea is the immediate cause is covered by these words. They do not protect, for example, against that natural and inevitable action of the winds and waves which results in what may be described as wear and tear. There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure. The purpose of the policy is to secure an indemnity against accidents which may happen, not against events which must happen. ... If a vessel strikes upon a sunken rock in fair weather and sinks, this is a loss by perils of the sea."