판결 이유
In a case where the cause of a vessel's loss is unknown, the court is not required to choose between two improbable explanations. The burden of proof remains on the claimant, and if neither explanation is established on the balance of probabilities, the claim fails.
사실관계
The vessel Popi M sank in calm weather in deep water. The owners claimed on their marine insurance policy, asserting the vessel struck a submerged submarine. The insurers denied liability, suggesting the vessel was unseaworthy due to wear and tear. Neither theory was particularly convincing.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that the trial judge had erred in accepting the submarine theory simply because the alternative was even less likely. Where both explanations are improbable, the court is entitled to conclude that the true cause remains unknown. The burden of proving an insured peril remained on the owners, who failed to discharge it.
주요 인용문
"The legal concept of proof of a case on a balance of probabilities must be applied with common sense. It requires a judge to determine what probably happened. It does not mean that the judge is compelled to choose between two competing improbabilities."
— Lord Brandon
후속 처리
Regularly cited on burden of proof in marine insurance claims and the limits of inference.