摘要
我國「海商法」第七十三條採取禁止甲板裝載原則，但是同條但書規定若甲板裝載「經託運人同意並載明於運送契約」或「航運種類或商業習慣所許」則爲法律例外所訐（甲板裝載阻卻違法事由），由於甲板裝載被認爲具有危險性且不利於託運人或受貨人，故法院對於第七十三條但書甲板裝載阻卻違法事由之解釋適用，其立場之嚴佫寬鬆攸關託運人或受貨人之利益維護。就現代海上件貨運送寶務有一般件貨運送與貨櫃運送之區別言，基於「不同者應爲不同對待」的實質平等觀，法院於解釋適用第七十三條時，應體認一般件貨與貨櫃貨抵擋海上風險之差異性，對於第七十三條但書於危險性較高之一般件貨甲板裝載的解釋適用，採取較爲嚴裕之立場，以免進而招致對託運人或受貨人更加不利之結果，尤其是法院對於「航運種類或商業習慣所許」於一般件貨甲板裝誠的適用，應多方考慮託運人之預測可能性、託運貨物是否非裝：我於甲板上即無法運送、其他運送人是否亦曾於運送同類貨物時將之裝載於甲板上、其他運送人是否默認同類貨物之運送可裝載甲板上、是否低觸法律、是否與公共秩序善良風俗有這、託運人之預測可能性等因素，以較爲嚴裕的立場解釋之，而於將來修正時，更應明文將一般件貨排除於「航運種類或商業習慣所許」規定之適用範因外。至於第七十三條但書於危險性相對較低之貨值甲板裝載的解釋適用、則可應海運習慣之需求採取較爲彈性之立場，惟仍應考慮裝載貨櫃之船舶種類以及貨櫃之種類。
並列摘要
Deck carriage is improper stowage and thus contrary to article 73 of the Maritime Commercial Law. If goods are in fact carried on deck when there is no statement on the face of the contract of carriage or permitting by the type of carriage and commercial custom that they are carried on deck, then this kind of deck carriage is an illegal deck carriage. It is a fact that certain container ships are especially equipped to carry containers both under deck and on deck. Although containers on deck are at greater risk than those under deck, containers on deck are always safer than general cargos on deck. It is proper to separate the legal effect of deck carriage of containers from the legal effect of deck carriage of general cargos. When considering the legal effect of deck carriage of containers, the court should take a flexible position because of the convenience of a large number of container carriages in this modern era.