Collision At Sea Case Study

775 Words2 Pages

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.

Open Document