Otal Investments Ltd. v. M v. Clary
494 F.3d 40, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16021, 2007 A.M.C. 1817 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a maritime collision in international waters governed by the 1910 Collision Convention, liability is allocated among all vessels that violated safety regulations and contributed to the accident. The allocation is based on a comparative fault analysis that considers both the relative culpability of each vessel's actions and the relative causative effect of those actions in bringing about the collision.
Facts:
- Before dawn on December 14, 2002, the M/V Kariba, the M/V Tricolor, and the M/V Clary were navigating a Traffic Separation Scheme in the English Channel during thick fog and low visibility.
- The Kariba and the Tricolor were proceeding westward, with the faster Tricolor in the process of overtaking the Kariba.
- The Clary was proceeding northward on an intersecting course, placing it on a collision course with the Kariba.
- None of the three vessels sounded its foghorn or communicated with the others via radio in the minutes leading up to the collision.
- The Clary, which had only one officer on the bridge, recognized the collision risk but delayed taking evasive action to pass behind the Kariba.
- The Tricolor's captain was aware that the Kariba and Clary were on a collision course but continued overtaking the Kariba at 17.9 knots.
- Believing a collision with the Clary was imminent, the Kariba's captain executed an abrupt turn to starboard, directly into the path of the overtaking Tricolor.
- The Kariba's bow struck the Tricolor's port side, causing the Tricolor and its cargo to sink. After the incident, the Clary's logbook was altered to falsify the weather conditions and the number of crew on the bridge.
Procedural Posture:
- Otal Investments, Ltd., owner of the M/V Kariba, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability.
- Owners of cargo lost on the M/V Tricolor filed claims against the Kariba.
- The Kariba impleaded the M/V Clary and the M/V Tricolor as third-party defendants.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the Kariba to be the sole cause of the collision and therefore solely liable for the damages.
- The Kariba and the cargo owners appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a vessel's violation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) establish its sole liability for a collision when other involved vessels also violated COLREGS and their actions were contributing causes of the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Circuit Judge
No. A vessel's violation of COLREGS does not establish its sole liability when other vessels also committed causative violations. The court found that all three vessels were at fault and that liability must be allocated proportionately among them based on both culpability and causation. The district court erred in finding the Kariba solely liable. The court's reasoning was that the rule in The Pennsylvania, which creates a strong presumption of causation against a vessel that violates a statutory rule, is a substantive rule of U.S. law and is superseded by the 1910 Collision Convention, which governs this case and abolishes such legal presumptions. The court then analyzed the actions of each vessel and found all three committed causative violations of the COLREGS: the Kariba for its improper turn and failure to slow down; the Tricolor for overtaking unsafely and traveling at an excessive speed for the conditions; and the Clary for failing to maintain a proper lookout and failing to take avoiding action in ample time. Since the violations of all three vessels were factual and proximate causes of the collision, liability must be divided among them.
Concurring - Newman, Circuit Judge
Judge Newman concurred fully with the majority's legal analysis. He wrote separately to urge the development of a sea traffic control system for crowded international waterways, analogous to air traffic control. He argued that the lack of effective monitoring and communication systems, which was evident in this case, creates unnecessary risks. He suggested that such a system, with shore-based control centers, could mandate course and speed adjustments to prevent future collisions like this one.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the allocation of fault in multi-vessel collisions under international maritime law as applied by U.S. courts. By holding that the U.S.-specific rule from The Pennsylvania is substantive and inapplicable under the 1910 Collision Convention, the court aligns American admiralty practice with the international standard. The ruling establishes that liability is not an all-or-nothing determination focused on the final wrongful act, but a comparative analysis of all contributing factors. This precedent requires courts to scrutinize the actions of every vessel involved in a collision for any violation of navigational rules that contributed to the accident, ensuring a more holistic and equitable distribution of liability.
Unlock the full brief for Otal Investments Ltd. v. M v. Clary