BST120 Maritime Law: Analyzing Liabilities in Avonmouth Collision

This case study delves into a maritime collision involving Andros Limited's 'Carbs' and Samos Limited's 'Loms' at Avonmouth, further involving Paros Limited's 'Policy'. The analysis focuses on determining liabilities based on negligence, breach of duty of care, and causation, referencing key legal principles from cases like Donoghue v. Stevenson, The Mineral Transporter and the Ibaraki Maru, and The Druid. The study examines the actions of each vessel, particularly Loms' attempt to overtake in a restricted lane and Carbs' master's reaction, as well as Policy's failure to warn. The potential defense of 'novus actus interveniens' is also considered. The study concludes by applying maritime regulations and legal precedents to assess the liabilities of Andros, Samos, and Paros, considering vicarious liability and the impact of each party's actions on the collision and subsequent damages. Desklib provides comprehensive study tools and resources for students.

Running Head: MARITIME LAW
Maritime Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1MARITIME LAW
Applicable law
As the collision has taken place at a UK port UK law would be applicable. The law of
negligence is applied in relation to a collision at sea rather in the same way it is applied on any
accidents at road. The initial problem in this situation is the establishment of a duty of care.
However the problem can be appropriately addresses through the application of the neighbour
principle which has been provided through the provisions of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson
[1932] UKHL 1001. The case established three elements to establish negligence which are Duty
of care, Breach of Duty and loss.
Collisions
The issue in this case is to determine the rights and liabilities of Andros, Samos and Paros
Limited. In admiralty law collision proceedings are different from other form of proceedings. A
statement which is known as a ‘preliminary act’ is provided initially by the parties to a collision
containing a collision statement of case. Various questions in relation to the collision are
contained in the statement which includes, weather conditions, course steered, details of the ships
involved and the angle of contact. It has been provided through Rule 61.4(5) of Part 61 of the
CPR that all parties which are involved in the collision have to file a completed statement of the
case within two months since a acknowledgement of services have been filed by the defendant2.
The admissions of facts will be constituted of the answers which are present in the statement of
case.
It had been stated by the court in the case of The Mineral Transporter and the Ibaraki
Maru [1986] AC 1 that a demise charter and a registered owner generally have the right to sue in
relation to collision damages at sea rather than other charterers. 3
1 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
2 Rule 61.4(5) of Part 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules
3 The Mineral Transporter and the Ibaraki Maru [1986] AC 1

2MARITIME LAW
The negligence of the crew would be binding on the owner of the ship as per the rules of
vicarious liability. In the case of The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391 it had been ruled by the court
that it would be the responsibility of the ship owner in relation to the acts or omission of the crew
unless the crew acted outside the course of employment4. In case the act has been done by a
person who is not a crew, it has to be considered that whether the person was a servant or an
independent contractor5.
The actions of the persons who are involved in the navigation of the seas is analyzed by
making a comparison to a reasonable seamanship as a question of fact. The extent to which
reference has been made to the collision regulation (Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and
Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996) is also important to determining compliance.
It has been stated by the regulations that a failure on the part of a person to act in
accordance with the collisions regulations does not primarily mean that the guilty party would be
party to a civil claim. Any action which has been taken in compliance of good seamanship
standard will not make a breach as per rule 2 of the regulations6. Causation has to be established
in the given situation for the breach. It has been stated by rule 5 that it is the responsibility of all
vessels to maintain a proper look out by hearing and sight7. Further rule 6 states that vessels
should always maintain a safer speed (the speed has not been articulated)8.
Provisions are also provided by the regulations in situation where the vessels are in view
of each other. For instance it is the duty of an overtaking ship to stay out of the way of a ship
which is overtaken by it. In the case of The Bywell Castle (1879) 4 PD 219 it had been stated by
the court that a ship owner whose crews have not met the standards of a product seamanship has
the right to exonerate itself where it can be seen that the failure is a result of agony of the
moment9. In this case Princes Alice without warning and suddenly turned sharp to port towards
The Bywell Castle which instead of turning away turned into her. In this case The Bywell Castle,
was exempted from liability under the provisions.
4 The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391
5 Baatz, Maritime Law (4th Edition, 2017)
6 Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 Rule 2
7 Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 Rule 5
8 Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 Rule 6
9 The Bywell Castle (1879) 4 PD 219

3MARITIME LAW
Another rule which is used in case of determining negligence is the “last opportunity
rule”. However the rule is determined not to be applicable as the nature of negligence of
colliding ships is very interwining as per the case of The Volute [1922] 1 AC 12910.
Even where breach of the defendant has been established by the plaintiff, it has to be
established that the loss caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach made by the
defendant. This means that the loss must have not taken place if there was no breach. Where
there is a successful attempt by the plaintiff in relation to the loss the defendant has the right to
show that the causation had been interrupted by some intervening event known as “a novus actus
interveniens.”
These provisions had been discussed in the case of The Oropesa (1940) 68 Ll. L. Rep.
21. In this case the collision was a result of fault on part of both the vessels. In order to discuss
salvage with the other master, the master of one of the vessels took out a boat. Lives were lost as
the boats overturned. In this case it had been held by the court that the actions of the master was
reasonable in relation to taking out the boat and did not result in novus actus interveniens thus
there was unbroken chain of chain of causation as lives were lost due to overturning of the boat11.
Further it has been stated in the case of The Zaglebie Dabrowskie (No. 2) (1978) 1
Lloyds Rep. 573 that there was an unbroken chain of causation when the vessel sank three hours
after the collision. It had been argued in the situation that the master had the opportunity to save
the vessel. However the court held that the hole in the vessel was large and it was not possible
for the master to do so12.
In the given situation the facts provided by the case study states that there has been a
collision between Carbs whose owner is Andros Limited and Loms whose owner is Samos
Limited. Carbs is a 25,000 GT M/V which is used regularly for the purpose of transporting oil
from a oversees supplier to the refinery of its owner at Avonmouth. The collision took place
when Carbs was approaching the entrance of Avonmouth and collided with Loms.
It has been provided by initial reports that there had been an attempt made by Loms to
overtake Carbs which was in a restricted lane where it has been strictly prohibited by a local bi-
10 The Volute [1922] 1 AC 129
11 The Oropesa (1940) 68 Ll. L. Rep. 21
12 Zaglebie Dabrowskie (No. 2) (1978) 1 Lloyds Rep. 573

4MARITIME LAW
law that in any situation overtaking is prohibited. Loms while completing its manoeuvre without
providing a warning turned to the port. In the given circumstances the master of carbs as he was
panic stricken turned to starboard which caused a collision and injured both the vessels.
The claim which can be made in the given situation will be a claim in person as here the
court have jurisdiction over the defendant in personal capacity.
In the given situation the law as provided by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson needs to
be applied in order to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties involved in the situation. It
has been provided in this case that there must be a duty of care which has been breached and
because of the breach the harm or injury has been resulted.
Through the application of the case of The Mineral Transporter and the Ibaraki Maru
where it had been stated that a registered owner generally have the right to sue in relation to
collision damages at sea rather than other charterers thus Andros have the right to sue Samos in
relation to a claim for negligence.
The negligence of the crew would be binding on the owner of the ship as per the rules of
vicarious liability as stated by the case of The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391. Applying these
principles in the present situation it can be stated that the negligence of the master of Loms
would be binding on the owners.
It is evident in the given situation that Samos violated the duty of care owed by them to
Andros by making an attempt to overtake in a lane where overtaking was strictly prohibited
under any situation. The fault here is of the Master of Loms. Even where breach of the defendant
has been established by the plaintiff, it has to be established that the loss caused to the plaintiff
was the result of the breach made by the defendant. This means that the loss must have not taken
place if there was no breach. The master of Loms was at fault and as per the principles of
Vicarious liability samos would be liable for the act although there was no pilot on the ship.
Further it has also been stated by the regulations that in situation where the vessels are in view of
each other it is the duty of an overtaking ship to stay out of the way of a ship which is overtaken
by it. Here a clear breach of duty has been made by Samos.

5MARITIME LAW
Further it needs to be analyzed whether the element of loss was present in the situation in
order to determine a claim of negligence. It has been provided through rule 2 of the Merchant
Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 that any action
which has been taken in compliance of good seamanship standard will not make a breach. In the
given situation overtaking in a lane which prohibits such act was not a compliance with good
seamanship standard. In addition losses has been incurred by Andros due to the actions of Samos
which would have not been incurred if the overtaking had not taken place.
it has also been provided through the scenario that a loss of £25 million in relation to the
chicken on board had been incurred by Samos. In relation to this situation it has been provided
by the case of The Bywell Castle it had been stated by the court that a ship owner whose crews
have not met the standards of a product seamanship has the right to exonerate itself where it can
be seen that the failure is a result of agony of the moment. In this case Princes Alice without
warning and suddenly turned sharp to port towards The Bywell Castle which instead of turning
away turned into her. In this case The Bywell Castle, was exempted from liability under the
provisions. Thus the owner of Carbs cannot be held liable in the given situation through the
application of the above discussed provisions.
A defence which is available to Samos in relation to the situation is the defence of “a
novus actus interveniens”. In this situation where there is a successful attempt by the plaintiff in
relation to the loss, the defendant has the right to show that the causation had been interrupted by
some intervening event. However the circumstance in the situation is such that unbroken chain of
causation is established and no interruption towards the causation can be identified. Where a
broken chain is not identified no relief or defence can be provided to the defendant as stated in
the case of The Oropesa. The provisions had also been made clear through the The Zaglebie
Dabrowskie case. In this case even where the master had the opportunity to save the vessel the
chain of causation was determined to be unbroken.
Another defense which is present in the situation is that provided under Section 187 of
the MSA 1995. As per the section if the claim is a result of a series of incidents, the court may
make multiple apportionments in relation to every separate head of damages. However there is
no way available through which it can be provided by Samos that Andros had done any
contribution to the incident which led to the damages. This section can further not be applied as

6MARITIME LAW
Andros is an innocent party in the situation and the section provides that there can be no innocent
party in the situation.
Damages
It has been provided by Section 187 of the MSA 1995 that where the claim is a result of a
series of incidents, the court may make multiple apportionments in relation to every separate
head of damages. In the case of The Calliope, fault in relation to initial grounding damage which
followed the collision were divided into 55% and 45% between the parties. However the section
is only applicable when the parties involved in the case were all at fault. There can be no
innocent party in the situation. However where there is an involvement of an innocent ship
liability is decided under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 197813.
Where the ship of the claimant as rendered a total loss, damages will be awarded based
on the value of the ship on the date the collision took place, rather than the voyage. In the case of
The Bernina (1886) 12 PD 36 the court allowed full claim for damages even where it was
evident that few repairs would have risen even if there was no collision14. In order to
compensate the claim for loss of profit and freight an additional sum is awarded. Where there
was no trading indulged into by the claimant some compensation will still be awarded in relation
to loss of use.
Further damages are only provided to cover the cost of repair or reinstatement and losses
arising out of the consequences. However these damages can be claimed in case of negligence.
Section 190 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 further imposes a two year time on collision
actions. However this time is entitled to be extended in certain circumstances15.
Now where negligence has been proved the quantity of damages has to be determined. It
has been provided in the case of The Bernina that the court allowed full claim for damages even
where it was evident that few repairs would have risen even if there was no collision. In order to
compensate the claim for loss of profit and freight an additional sum is awarded. Where the ship
13 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
14 The Bernina (1886) 12 PD 36
15 Merchant Shipping Act 1995

7MARITIME LAW
of the claimant has rendered a total loss, damages will be awarded based on the value of the ship
on the date the collision took place, rather than the voyage. Thus Andros are entitled to receive
damages of £25,000 and the cost of further repair which are still to be quantified.
Although damages has been faced by Policy a ship which was traveling behind Loms and
Carbs no claim has been made by them and they cannot be contacted either. In this situation they
have however breached a duty under rule 5 of the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and
Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 which states that it is the responsibility of all
vessels to maintain a proper look out by hearing and sight. As the act was totally the fault if
Loms through the application of the Bywell Castle case it can be stated that they are not entitled
to any damages in the situation. However they can make a claim from Paros Limited for their
breach of duty under rule 5. In addition Andros is also entitled to off hire period damages as it
would not be able to sale for three months. Such damages would not be recovered by Samos the
damage has been caused by their own negligence.
Limitation
The merchant Shipping Act 1995 through the provisions of section 190 imposed two year
limitation period in relation to collision actions. However the court may extended if any
reasonable opportunity is not achieved during the limitation period for the ship to be arrested.
Thus in the same way the claim under this case has to be brought within the prescribed period.
Maritime pollution
The liability of a ship owner in relation to a maritime pollution is dealt with under the tort
of negligence and nuisance. In addition International Convention Relating to Intervention on
the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 has been enacted through which the
states are provided with both remedial and preventive actions in relation to potential or acute oil
pollution in the high seas16. In relation to private law the International Convention on Civil
Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC) has been brought to existence to establish a
more generous compensation regime as compared to that of negligence17. This convention was
followed by International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for
Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 through which adequate compensation is
16 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969
17 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC)

8MARITIME LAW
provided to those victims who did not fall within the liability of the statutory liability or who
were not adequately compensated. The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 bring into
the English legal system the provisions of the CLC18.
According to Article III.1 strict liability is imposed on ship owners without considering
their flag or nationality in relation to pollution damage from combination bulk carriers and laden
bulk oil tankers19. Further Article 1.7 pollution damage means any loss or damage outside the
ship which includes the cost of preventive measures, loss of profit and compensation in relation
to the impairment of the environment.
It has been further provided through the provisions Art. 111.2 that a liability may be
avoided by a ship owner if it can be proved by him that the escape or discharge or the threat in
relation to the contamination in the outcome of an act of war or an inevitable natural
phenomenon. Further the liability may also been avoided where the act has been done by a
person with an intention to cause damages who is not a servant or agent of the owner. Under the
2000 CLC the liability for pollution for ships having more than 5000 and less than 140000 tons
of capacity is 4.51 SDR till 5000 tons and 631 SDR for each additional ton. Further strict
liability had been introduced for ship owners by International Convention on Civil Liability
for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 200120.
It has been provided by Article 7(3) of the E.U. Regulation No. 1215/2012 that a claim
in relation to tort may be brought before the court of the member states where the harmful event
took place21. The provisions have also been discussed in the case of Case 21/76 Handelskwekerij
GJ Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d’ Alsace SA [1976] ECR 173522.
In the case of Moses v MV Sea Chase [2001] FMSC 56; 10 FSM Intrm. 45 (Chk. 2001) it
had been stated by the court that ships are liable for any damages which have been caused to the
marine environment and only the state has the right to collect such damages for the ship rather
than any their party. Further in the case of People of Rull ex rel Ruepong v MV Kyowa Violet
[2006] FMSC 53; 14 FSM Intrm. 403 the court allowed damages which had been caused by the
18 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971
19 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 2000 (CLC) Article III.1
20 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 2000 (CLC) Article 111.2
21 E.U. Regulation No. 1215/2012
22 Case 21/76 Handelskwekerij GJ Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d’ Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1735.

9MARITIME LAW
ship by oil spill. In this case it had been stated by the court that where there is groundings and oil
spills a cause of action is available. In this case the court held a claim of private nuisance would
be successful as injury to the right of the plaintiff to use their property (the reef and heaving
fishing by local fishermen) has been caused.
In relation to the oil pollution it can be stated that as per Merchant Shipping (Oil
Pollution) Act 1971 Article III.1 strict liability is imposed on ship owners without considering
their flag or nationality in relation to pollution damage from combination bulk carriers and laden
bulk oil tankers. It has been further provided through the provisions Art. 111.2 That a liability
may be avoided by a ship owner if it can be proved by him that the escape or discharge or the
threat in relation to the contamination in the outcome of an act of war or an inevitable natural
phenomenon. Further the liability may also been avoided where the act has been done by a
person with an intention to cause damages who is not a servant or agent of the owner. Thus in the
given situation Andros cannot evade this strict liability. According to the damages provisions
under the CLC 2000 provided above they need to pay 4.51M SDR added with (631*2000) =
1262000 SDR as the vessel has capacity of 25000 tons. The claim can be made by those whose
rights to enjoy fishing had been violated under the case of People of Rull ex rel Ruepong v MV
Kyowa Violet. In addition the government may also make a claim for environment pollution
under the principles of Moses v MV Sea Chase.
Salvage
Savage is a unique principle in maritime law which has been incorporated to provide
compensation to a party who has made an effort to save another party without any duty imposed
on them. However in the case of The Renpor (1883) 3 PD 115 it had been stated by the court
that the services of the would be salvo rust to an extent rendered successful in order to be eligible
for making a salvage award claim. Where the vessel which has been provided help is lost, no
claim can be made23. However the principles of salvage would not be applicable in this case.
23 Baughen, Shipping Law (6th Edition, 2015)

10MARITIME LAW
In rem and in Personam
A claim in Admiralty law can be both in Rem and in Person. A claim in personam is a
claim where the court have jurisdiction over the defendant in personal capacity. On the other
hand where the court has jurisdiction over a specific item of property it is a claim in Rem. A
defendant has the right of making a submission towards the jurisdiction of the court either by
acknowledging service without taking objection or by express agreement. If not done than the
court may rely upon rule 6.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In this case the claim in situation of
maritime pollution can be brought both In rem and in Personam and on the other hand the
collision claim can be brought in Personam.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above situation that Andros are entitled to receive damages
of £25,000 and the cost of further repair which are still to be quantified. They however have to
pay for oil pollution caused by them and the loss faced to the locals. They can claim the amount
for Samos Ltd. The owner of Policy however had a claim has not made any claim in the
situation. Samos is not entitled to any damages.

11MARITIME LAW
Bibliography
Legislations
 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
 E.U. Regulation No. 1215/2012
 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC)
 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 2000
 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil
Pollution Casualties 1969
 Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996
Rule
 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971
 Merchant Shipping Act 1995
 Rule 61.4(5) of Part 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Cases
 Case 21/76 Handelskwekerij GJ Bier BV v. Mines de Potasse d’ Alsace SA [1976] ECR
1735.
 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
 The Bernina (1886) 12 PD 36
 The Bywell Castle (1879) 4 PD 219
 The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391
 The Mineral Transporter and the Ibaraki Maru [1986] AC 1
 The Oropesa (1940) 68 Ll. L. Rep. 21
 The Volute [1922] 1 AC 129
 Zaglebie Dabrowskie (No. 2) (1978) 1 Lloyds Rep. 573
 Moses v MV Sea Chase [2001] FMSC 56; 10 FSM Intrm. 45 (Chk. 2001)
 People of Rull ex rel Ruepong v MV Kyowa Violet [2006] FMSC 53; 14 FSM
Intrm. 403
Books:
• Baughen, Shipping Law (6th Edition, 2015)
• Baatz, Maritime Law (4th Edition, 2017)