1. INTRODUCTION The law involved in the present case is the law of maritime, specifically in the area of collisions at sea (Part 1) and law of salvage (Part 2). Based on the merits of this case, the author hereby renders his legal opinion on the rights and potential liabilities of the parties arising from the series of events. 2. Part 1: COLLISION AT SEA There are civil and criminal liabilities arise from the fact of the case. The issues to be determined are whether Invictus is liable for the damages caused to the Sandford lighthouse and whether Invictus has violated regulations concerning to collision at sea. The foundation of the rules governing the issue of collision at sea was originated in 1840 where the London trinity House has established set of binding regulations (practice and custom) on the conduct of navigation. Section 419(4) of Merchant Shipping Act (‘MSA’) 1894 provides principle of ‘presumption of fault’ presuming the ship in the event of breach of the regulation to be deemed at fault, unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances of the case made departure from the regulation necessary. However this arbitrary presumption principle has been abolished by virtue of section 4 of MSA 1911.Further, in 1977, the British government has adopted the international Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (‘COLREGS’) 1972 as part of English law which the regulations are subject to these MSAs and now been consolidated by the MSA 1995. In general, COLREGS principles will be applicable to ‘all British ships on the high seas and all waters connected therewith navigable by sea-going vessels and to foreign ships coming within the UK territorial waters’ . However, there are exceptions ie, wh... ... middle of paper ... ...contributed to the collision. As such, Invictus will be found liable for breaching this regulation. Regulation 6 provides that ‘every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions’. This regulation imposes a duty to ensure that the ship should at all-time be in a safe speed . In the absence of the report on the speed of Invictus, it can be argued that the malfunction of the radar could lead to different and indefinite reading of the speed raised difficulties in determining the right speed. In additon, the failure of the ship master in slowing down the vessel upon being notified of the blip in the centre of the screen could be argued that Invictus was not in a safe speed which violated this regulation.
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 .
“The Wreck of the Sea-Venture,” written by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker in their book Many Headed Hydra, tells the story of the shipwreck of the Sea-Venture en route to Virginia in 1669, which left the passengers of the ship stranded on Bermuda without a ship to continue the journey to Virginia. While the members of the Virginia Company made a boat to continue the journey, the remaining passengers of the Sea-Venture had to cooperate with one another in order to survive. The authors’ thesis in this document is the shipwreck of the Sea-Venture and the actions taken by the sailors portray the themes of early Atlantic settlement. For example, the sailing of the Sea-Venture was caused by expropriation. The Virginia Company advertised the New
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse . This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee  and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
- DeLovio v. Boit (1815): Maritime insurance policies are within admiralty & maritime jurisdiction of US b/c maritime contracts include charter parties, affreightments, marine bonds, Ks for repairing, supplying & navigating ships, Ks between part owners – etc – AND insurance.
The Responsibility for Accident case is about an argument between an employee, called John Schmidt, and his employer. The dispute occurred when John seriously injured his hand when operating a machine in the production shop and neither John nor the company
Document 2,Navigation Act of September 13, 1660 (An Excerpt) highlights Britain’s attempt to control commerce through international trade restrictions. The Navigation Act of September 13, 1660 which reinforces the Navigation Ordinance of 1651, an English government policy that banned foreign ships and third-party countries ships from transporting goods from outside Europe to England or any of its colonies. Under the Navigation Act, three-quarters of the ships’ crews must be English and products not produced by England could only be shipped from the colonies to England or other English colonies.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.
The Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules are all international trade laws which attempted to harmonise trade law regarding carriers. However, not all countries have parted from their laws and adopt the Rotterdam Rules, the most modern of the three provisions. The Hague-Visby Rules are heavily criticised because of the laws included seem to heavily favour cargo owners and the Hamburg rules were introduced to replace the 1924 Hague Rules and the 1968 Hague-Visby Rules (Wanigasekera and Creasy, n.d., p. 2, 4). The Hamburg Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules are very different from each other in regards of what goods are covered and time length to bring a claim. According to Hague-Visby Rule article 1(c), “'Goods' includes goods, wares, merchandise, and articles of every kind whatsoever except live animals” and deck cargo (Jus.uio.no, 2014). The Hamburg Rules accepts live animals and deck cargo within their provisions as goods covered under Article 1(5) and Article 9 (United Nations Convention on the Car...
While this proposition is true, it did not in any way stop Turkey from asserting jurisdiction over acts in a foreign ship that resulted in the death of Turkish nationals aboard the Boz-Kourt as the ship is placed in the same position as national territory. The same principles of international law that apply between the territories of two different States apply and international law does not prohibit the cognizance of the acts aboard a foreign ship. This conclusion would have been amended had there been a rule of customary international law that established the exclusive jurisdiction of the State whose flag was flown. However, France failed to conclusively prove the existence of such a rule of customary international law and so, the previous conclusion
Department of Homeland Security, “ Implementation of National Maritime Security Initiatives”, Federal Register, Rules and Regulations, Vol. 68, No. 204, October 22, 2003 ,p.,60448 cited in Sean D. Murphy P, United States Practice in International Law, Volume 2; Volumes 2002-2004 Cambridge university press, new York, 2005,p .130