Question

帮忙翻译，谢谢。

216. It is submitted that Exxon’s consignment of its oil cargo for ocean carriage on board the Exxon Valdez was an “operation” within (a). The liability of Exxon to pay damages for damage to property or loss of use of property was caused by or alleged to have been caused directly by pollution or contamination arising out of such “operation”. Mr Edelman Q.C. on behalf of the Claimant relies on Dunthorne v. Bentley [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 560 at pages 562-3 and Coxe v. Employer’s Liability Assurance Corporation [1916] 2KB 629 to make good his submission that there was a sufficiently close causal nexus between Exxon’s oil consignment operations and the pollution or contamination to come within Endorsement No. 2 to the effect that the negligence of the crew of the vessel did not break the necessary chain of causation for “arising out of”.
217. The Claimants also rely on Endorsement No 2A the text of which has already been set out at paragraph 128. Mr Edelman submits that in as much as this provision excludes cover for bodily injury or property damage caused as stated “in respect of onshore seepage, pollution and contamination only” (emphasis added) demonstrates that the parties intended the Section IIIB cover otherwise to apply to offshore pollution.

Answer 1

这是提交,埃克森的委托,为海洋运输货物的石油埃克森瓦尔迪兹的甲板上是“经营”在(a)。埃克森的责任支付赔偿损失或财产损失是由于资产使用之或宣称直接造成的污染引起的污染的这种“经营”。这些伍德先生则代表申请人依赖Dunthorne v本特利[1999]劳合社在页562-3 560红外代表,Coxe v雇主的责任保险公司2KB[1916年]他做一个好的629人,有一个足够提交密切因果纽带埃克森的石油寄售业务的污染或污染事件属于第二支持的作用的全体工作人员的疏忽船舶不打断必要的链“引起的原因”。
217。申报人也依靠背书没有2A的文本已经被在段128。伍德先生则提交由于这项规定不包括替身体伤害或财产损失而对所述“陆上渗流、污染和污染只有”(额外的强调)表明双方计划设计的部分覆盖否则申请希望海洋污染。