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

In the given case study a dispute pull up stakes arise between the four parties to determine the liability of each watercraft for multiple clashings caused at sea. In summary, the facts are that the five was crossing the Britannia principal traffic separation scheme but was not making kosher use of the crossing points. The Willie, a bulk oil carrier which was adhering to the scheme, uneven the cinque and foresaw the risk of collision so the master issued a serial publication of warnings. The Flipper unattended 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 nearby yacht. Moments later the Orca, which was insufficiently crewed and had faulty navigation equipment collided with the semi-submerged Flipper. The captain of the Orca refused salvage assistance thinking he could return the enchant to the port for repairs himself. However, the vessel sunk before it could reach safety.In this establish I am going to advise all four parties as to their likely liability for the collision and the defences and counter claims available. In doing this I willing make reference to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (hereafter referred to as the collision orders) and the common and statute law regarding causation. By advising the parties according to these legal instruments they shadow determine their likely liability in court. I will buy the farm 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 send off sufferer will still be held vicariously liable unless he can prove 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 because the Flipper and the Willie must also bear some liability.In remainder it is lik ely 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 turn out that the Willie acted on scanty radar information in breach of regulation 7(c) then the likely apportionment will be 50/50 as both vessels would equally be responsible for the collision. This is liability for wrong caused to the Flipper, the Willie and the private yacht. The owners of the Orca are likely to take the bulk of business for their own collision as the acts of the other vessels are far withal remote for them to assume responsibility, liability is likely to be apportioned at 90% to the Orca and 10% between the Flipper and Willie.