In the given case study a dispute will arise between the four parties to determine the liability of each vessel for multiple collisions caused at sea. In summary, the facts are that the Flipper was crossing the Britannia Straits traffic separation scheme but was not making proper use of the crossing points. The Willie, a bulk oil carrier which was adhering to the scheme, spotted the Flipper and foresaw the risk of collision so the captain issued a series of warnings. The Flipper ignored these warnings thinking she had enough time to pass. The Willie, realising she was being ignored made a turn for starboard creating a wash which capsized the Flipper and a nearby yacht. Moments later the Orca, which was insufficiently crewed and had faulty navigation equipment collided with the semi-submerged Flipper. The captain of the Orca refused salvage assistance thinking he could return the ship to the port for repairs himself. However, the vessel sunk before it could reach safety. In this essay I am going to advise all four parties as to their likely liability for the collision and the defences and counter claims available. In doing this I will make reference to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (hereafter referred to as the collision regulations) and the common and statute law regarding causation. By advising the parties according to these legal instruments they can determine their likely liability in court. I will start by establishing which vessels caused the collisions. It should be noted that although it was the misconduct of the crew members that led to the collision, the ship owner will still be held vicariously liable unless he can prove the acts of the crew constituted a ‘frolic of their own’, s... ... middle of paper ... ... from its collision with the Flipper was still the operating cause of the sinking therefore the Flipper and the Willie must also bear some liability. In conclusion it is likely that the courts will apportion liability as such; the Flipper and the Willie will be found 80% and 20% liable respectively. However, if it is proved that the Willie acted on scanty radar information in breach of regulation 7(c) then the likely apportionment will be 50/50 as both vessels would equally be responsible for the collision. This is liability for damage caused to the Flipper, the Willie and the private yacht. The owners of the Orca are likely to take the bulk of responsibility for their own collision as the acts of the other vessels are far too remote for them to assume responsibility, liability is likely to be apportioned at 90% to the Orca and 10% between the Flipper and Willie.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Who is legally responsible for this incident? From the report, it was ruled as a normal accident. This may be the case since it was not due to negligence on the locomotive operator or the tugboat captain. It was an unfortunate event that resulted in the loss of several lives. As a nationally recognized company Amtrak, it is in their best interest to compensate the passengers and the loved one’s families to maintain a good public reputation. Even though legally they are not responsible for the loss, they have a social responsibility to react in this
Mamo v Surace (“Mamo”) examines fault and finality, in the context of an unavoidable accident. Definitional discussion emerges within the idea of “fault”, with the outcomes ultimately furthering the legal avenues of victims of blameless accidents, enabled by the separation of non-tortious negligence and “fault”. Notably, the dismissal of arguments raised at appeal furthers the notion that circumstantially, injustice must be endured for the sake of finality, to avoid greater an injustice inflicted upon the opposing counsel .
The sinking of the Lusitania was a tragic event. It occurred on May 7th, 1915 in the North Atlantic ocean. The famous British ocean liner had departed from New York City and was off the coast of Ireland when a German submarine fired torpedoes. The ship had roughly 1,900 passengers on board, most of which were American citizens. The ship was meant for passengers and not for cargo but as lots of reporters have stated there was in fact a handful of war materials aboard the ship which was kept secret from its passengers.Prior to the sinking the Germans had declared that the waters around the British Isles were considered to be a war zone.1 This war zone idea was backed by the fact that the Germans admitted to enforce unrestricted submarine warfare; meaning if you were in the water you were getting blown up with or without prior knowledge. It took a total of eighteen minutes for the Lusitania, in its entirety, to disappear beneath the waves of the North Atlantic ocean.2 After the ship had sunk the American press had openly and with lots of determination and passion deemed the event uncivilized. However, the Lusitania was not the only ship that was torpedoed. A year later in 1916 the Sussex, an unarmed French passenger ship was sunk by another German submarine. 3
Under California Law, should Charles and Paddy’s be held liable by the court for negligence and award Dennis with compensation when the incident occurred as a result of Dennis’ and Charlie’s destruction of the property, Charles owed no duty to Dennis, Dennis knew the foreseeable risk just as well as Charles, and Paddy’s had posted warnings for the damages that caused the incident in question?
In its day, the Titanic was the largest, most modern cruise liner in the world. The builders
The sinking of the Titanic demonstrated the concept not only of the privileges of being a first class passenger, but also the responsibilities that duty implied. Although, the Titanic brought many of her passengers with her including profuse of her lower class. According to Cummins, Captain Smith was aware that the ship would sink, and lack of communication hindered the expulsion and increased the number of fatalities (Cummins). Smith knowledge of the collision increased the numbers of deaths, especially for the lower class.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
terms firstly, where it involves two other contracts respectively. Then, I will mainly analyse the duties of the shipper in the contract of carriage. Next, the most discussion will be referred to the contract of marine insurance on the relationship between the assured and insured, as well as the insurance cover. Finally, I will analyse letters of credit as a method of pay... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Titanic began to turn, but it was too close and too heavy to avoid a collision. The ship's side scraped along the iceberg. At least five of its supposedly watertight com...
The concept of salvage entails the provision of assistance to a maritime property, mainly a ship, cargo or both which is facing a potential threat, officially described as “danger”; the main point differentiating salvage from towage. Danger, referring to either a present or a potential hazardous situation, has to be evidenced in court by the salvor in order for a claim to be considered as a salvage claim (Institute of Maritime Law, 2008, p.186).
Fear has taken a hold of every man aboard this ship, as it should; our luck is as far gone as the winds that led us off course. For nights and days gusts beyond measure have forced us south, yet our vessel beauty, Le Serpent, stays afloat. The souls aboard her, lay at the mercy of this ruthless sea. Chaotic weather has turned the crew from noble seamen searching for glory and riches, to whimpering children. To stay sane I keep the holy trinity close to my heart and the lady on my mind. Desperation comes and goes from the men’s eyes, while the black, blistering clouds fasten above us, as endless as the ocean itself. The sea rocks our wood hull back and forth but has yet to flip her. The rocking forces our bodies to cling to any sturdy or available hinge, nook or rope, anything a man can grasp with a sea soaked hand. The impacts make every step a danger. We all have taken on a ghoulish complexion; the absence of sunlight led the weak souls aboard to fight sleep until sick. Some of us pray for the sun to rise but thunder constantly deafens our cries as it crackles above the mast. We have been out to sea for fifty-five days and we have been in this forsaken storm for the last seventeen.
In 1842 a tragedy occurred when a ship struck an iceberg and more than thirty passengers piled onto a rescue boat that was meant to hold a maximum of seven people. As a storm became evident and water rushed into the lifeboat, it was clear that in order for anyone to survive the load would need to be lightened. The commanding captain suggested that some people would need to be thrown overboard in order for anyone to survive. There was a great argument on the boat between the captain and the passengers who opposed his decision. Some suggested that the weakest should be drowned, as miles of rowing the lifeboat would take toll on even the strongest. This reasoning would also make it absurd to draw names of who should be thrown over. Others suggested that if they all stayed onboard no one would be responsible for the deaths, although the captain argued he would be guilty if those who he could have saved perished in the process. Alternatively the captain decided that the weakest would be sacrificed in order to save the few left on the lifeboat. Days later the survivors were rescued and the captain was put on trial for his virtues.
Everyone thinks they know the tragic story of the RMS Titanic (Titanic). Everyone thinks they know the statistics. But there is so much more than meets the eye. Few know whose fault it was that 1,518 people died or that only 706 lived. Few know the stories behind all of these people. Few know the story of the band and their last efforts to calm the passengers. Some know of Dr. Robert Ballard and his amazing discovery. And most have seen the movie. What follows is information about “that fateful night”, “that unsinkable ship”, the mysteries that even Leonardo DiCaprio did not reveal.
"1- The name of the insured, or of some person who effects the insurance on his