Liability of Vessels for Collisions Caused at Sea: Case Study Essay

In the disposed case study a dispute bequeath arise between the four parties to determine the financial obligation of each watercraft for multiple clashings caused at sea. In summary, the facts are that the pentad was get over 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 venture of collision so the captain issued a series of warnings. The Flipper do by 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 close yacht. Moments later the killer, which was insufficiently crewed and had faulty navigation equipment collided with the semi-submerged Flipper. The captain of the sea wolf refused save 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 in all likelihood liability for the collision and the defences and counter claims available. In doing this I go away make generator to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (hereafter referred to as the collision regulations) and the common and legislation law regarding causation. By advising the parties according to these legal instruments they can determine their potential 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 exhibit the acts of the crew constituted a frolic of their own, s... ... from its collision with the Flipper was still the operating cause of the sinking therefore the Flipper and the Willie moldiness also bear some liability.In conclusion i t 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 meagerly radar information in breach of regulation 7(c) then the likely apportionment will be 50/50 as some(prenominal) 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 espouse responsibility, liability is likely to be apportioned at 90% to the Orca and 10% between the Flipper and Willie.