It has been decided that a collision due to any cause other than the negligence of the Shipowner or his servants is within the scope of ________ ．A.act of GodB.peril of the seaC.queen's enemiesD.inherent vice in the goods

A vessel is "engaged in fishing" when ______.

A.her gear extends more than 100 meters from the vessel

B.she is using any type of gear，other than lines

C.she is using fishing apparatus which restricts her maneuverability

D.she has any fishing gear on board

Until security has been provided the Contractor shall have a maritime lien on ______ for his remuneration．

A.the property lost

B.the property salved

C.the property involved in the accident which gave rise to the salvage operations

D.any other property in danger which is not and has not been on board the vessel

材料:

Some older decisions have held that the carrier，in order to rebut the presumption of liability resulting from the arrival in damaged condition of GOODs shipped undamaged，must prove not only that the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the carrier&39;s part．

Most more recent decisions and authors，however，uphold the view that，in general，the carrier may rebut the claimant&39;s prima facie case simply by proving that the loss was caused by an excepted peril．At that point，the onus switches to the cargo claimant to prove that the true cause of the loss was the carrier&39;s negligence．

Nevertheless certain Hague and Hague/Visby Rules exceptions，expressly or implicitly，also require the carrier to negative its own negligence in proving the exception itself．For example，a clause in the said rules expressly imposes on the carrier the burden of proving that the loss or damage occurred without its actual fault or privity and without any fault or neglect on the part of its servants or agents．

The carrier，however，must truly prove the existence of one or more of the exceptions and their causative role in respect of the loss or damage．Conjectures and speculation do not take the place of hard evidence．A court has held：“Mere speculation will not overcome the prima facie evidence of a clean bill of lading”．

问题：

The carrier will be held liable for the loss or damage if _______．

A.it is proved that he has privity to the loss or damage

B.it is proved that the fault or neglect on his part is not the true cause of the loss or damage

C.it is too onerous for him to demonstrate that the loss or damage is caused by what is beyond his control

D.if there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with old decisions，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

In accordance with most more recent decisions and authors，the carrier will not be excused unless he has proved that _______．A.not only the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils，but also that the harm did not result from any negligence on the his part

B.the loss or damage was caused by one of the excepted perils

C.the harm did not result from any negligence on his part

D.there are conjectures and speculation

It is concluded that _______．A.The carrier is not in a position to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils

B.It can not be decided that whether the carrier has to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils because there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

C.The carrier does not have to prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils due to the fact that there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

D.The carrier must truly prove the loss or damage is substantially caused by one or more of the excepted perils even there are some differences between the decisions and authors and requirements of Hague and Hague/Visby Rules

请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析，谢谢！

If the salvor has been negligent and has thereby failed to prevent or minimize damage to the environment，he ______．

A.may be deprived of the whole or part of any special compensation due thereunder

B.will be in no way deprived of any special compensation due thereunder

C.will be required to pay special compensation to the parties involved therein

D.will be required to pay special compensation to the competent authorities thereof

If at any time the officer in charge of the navigational watch is to be relieved when a manoeuvre or other action to avoid any hazard is taking place，______．

A.the relief of that officer shall be made prior to such action has been completed

B.the relief of that officer shall never be made

C.the relief of that officer shall be deferred until such action has been completed

D.the relief of that officer shall be made by the captain