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.
Rule: During the legal proceedings, it was established that it was a clear case of duty negligence and dereliction on references of the evidences. The resort company is responsible for the maintenance and establishment of safe environment for all the visitors, which was not in this case. During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of the resort and the derelictions of the authority of the resort, was held accountable for this accident. It was established that Mr. Watters had a record of minimal attentions to corporate formalities and he had consistently been skipping all of the corporate meetings. The break down in the boat that led to the deaths of Jared and William Geringer correspond to negligence and ignorance for the duty of
“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 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 .
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
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
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...
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 majority of driving offences are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This essay will mostly examine causing death by unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driving (s3ZB) and causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. (s2B) There is often a distinction between constructive and non constructive strict liability offences. These offences are considered to be constructive strict liability since the prosecution does not need prove there was any fault in relation to causing the death.
Although merchant ships spend most of their lifetime outside the territorial waters, the current international maritime legal regime is ironically revolved around nationality of the vessel. Every vessel engaged in international trade must register in a country and is subjected to the regulatory control of that country whose flag it flies as per the existing international maritime law. Resultantly, any country has the right to allow a vessel to fly its national flag and to therefore bestow its nationality upon that vessel. When a vessel owner registers a vessel with a nation, the owner agrees to abide by that nation’s law and regulations of that ‘flag state’ in return for protection and the right of its vessel to be of that sovereign state. A system commonly known as “Flags of Convenience” (FOC) has developed, in which commercial vessels register in countries with “open registries” and consequently the ships contain practically no link at all to the flag states in which they are registered.
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
And the last major law that governs you while underwater is Henry's law. It simply s...
It is required of the flag state to enact a law which imposes this obligation on the master of the ship. It is, consequently, not a self-executing norm. The scope of this duty has also been extended to “any person”, regardless of their circumstances. This is an essential factor to consider when keeping in mind that most of the people requiring assistance could be refugees or migrants. The only requirement stipulated in the course of providing assistance is that there should be a situation of distress. Even though there is apparent clarity in this article, however, the extent of the assistance to be provided or the existence and scope of related duties (such as bringing the distresses persons to a place of safety) remain vague and