| maritime law - collision and allision |
| Interviewing - Mates - Chief Engineers - Designated Duty Engineers - Interviews - Deckhands Able Bodied Seamen - Tankermen - Dispatchers - QMED - Interviewing |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Maritime Law and Liability for Moving Vessel Hitting
Stationary Object
On November 10, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit delivered a decision that discussed the apportionment
of liability between a vessel and fixed object in an allision. An
allision arises when a vessel hits a stationary object, as a
opposed to a collision, which arises between two or more
moving vessels.
Although the general rule of maritime law is that a between a
vessel and a non-moving object, the vessel is presumed to be
at fault, this decision covers a very interesting discussion of the
vessel’s anti-collision alarm, and how much difference it would
have made in a stretch of the Gulf of Mexico densely packed
with oil rigs. The vessel was a 396 ton steel fishing vessel
equipped with a Furuno Model 1731 Mark-3 Radar and a
Pinpoint Navigational Chart System. The radar had an anti-
collision alarm that is supposed to emit an alarm sound when
an obstacle enters a field that is programmed in by the
operator. The fishing boat left Cameronn, Louisiana to proceed
towards its fishing grounds. The vessel owner had not provided
the captain with training about the use of the alarm and did not
have a policy requiring him to use the anti-collision alarm. The
captain had not read the radar manual and was not aware of
the alarm’s capabilities. Sometime during the voyage, one of
the crew members entered the bridge and showed the captain
a component of the vessels refrigeration system that was not
functioning. They would need this component to work to fish.
The captain turned the bridge lights on to examine the part after
he scanned the horizon to check for other vessels or obstacles.
He looked at the part and agreed that it needed replacement.
During efforts to contact the company offices on shore to
arrange for a spare part, the ship crashed into an oil platform.
The captain observed no lights or sounding devices.
Click here to read the appeals court decision agreeing with the
decision of the lower court that divided blame between the
fishing vessel and the unlit oil rig.
Stationary Object
On November 10, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit delivered a decision that discussed the apportionment
of liability between a vessel and fixed object in an allision. An
allision arises when a vessel hits a stationary object, as a
opposed to a collision, which arises between two or more
moving vessels.
Although the general rule of maritime law is that a between a
vessel and a non-moving object, the vessel is presumed to be
at fault, this decision covers a very interesting discussion of the
vessel’s anti-collision alarm, and how much difference it would
have made in a stretch of the Gulf of Mexico densely packed
with oil rigs. The vessel was a 396 ton steel fishing vessel
equipped with a Furuno Model 1731 Mark-3 Radar and a
Pinpoint Navigational Chart System. The radar had an anti-
collision alarm that is supposed to emit an alarm sound when
an obstacle enters a field that is programmed in by the
operator. The fishing boat left Cameronn, Louisiana to proceed
towards its fishing grounds. The vessel owner had not provided
the captain with training about the use of the alarm and did not
have a policy requiring him to use the anti-collision alarm. The
captain had not read the radar manual and was not aware of
the alarm’s capabilities. Sometime during the voyage, one of
the crew members entered the bridge and showed the captain
a component of the vessels refrigeration system that was not
functioning. They would need this component to work to fish.
The captain turned the bridge lights on to examine the part after
he scanned the horizon to check for other vessels or obstacles.
He looked at the part and agreed that it needed replacement.
During efforts to contact the company offices on shore to
arrange for a spare part, the ship crashed into an oil platform.
The captain observed no lights or sounding devices.
Click here to read the appeals court decision agreeing with the
decision of the lower court that divided blame between the
fishing vessel and the unlit oil rig.
