1、 Maritime LawMaritime Law 海商法英文课件（2 2）（6-106-10章）CONTENTS SCHAPTER 1 Admiralty Jurisdiction and Maritime LawSCHAPTER 2 Ships and its Rights in RemSCHAPTER 3 Contract of Carriage of Goods by SeaSCHAPTER 4 Bills of LadingSCHAPTER 5 CharterpartiesSCHAPTER 6 CollisionsSCHAPTER 7 Salvage SCHAPTER 8 Towag
2、e SCHAPTER 9 General AverageSCHAPTER 10 Limitation of Liability CHAPTER 6 CollisionsContents:Introduction Types of collision The divided damages rule Arrest of ShipsIntroduction SDefinition of collsion SLoss or damage caused without actual contactDefinition of collsion Article 165,MC Collision of sh
3、ips means an accident arising from the touching of ships at sea or in other navigable waters adjacent thereto.Ships referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include those non-military or public service ships or craft that collide with the ships mentioned in Article 3 of this Code.Loss or damage
4、caused without actual contactWright v.Brown collision means the impact of two vessels both moving，and is distinguished from allision，which designates the striking of a moving vessel against one that is stationary.But in a broad sense，collision is used，to include allision，and perhaps other species of
5、 encounters between vessels，and between a vessel and other floating，though nonnavigable,objectIn some courts the term“allision”used in a broader sense to include the contacts of moving vessels not only with stationary vessels or other floating structures，but also with piers，wharves，bridges and other
6、 shoreside installations Inevitable accident “Inevitable accident”has been defined as a collision which a party could not possibly prevent by the exercise of ordinary care，caution and maritime skill A case in point:The Fames River Transport lnc.v.Nasenbulk Two ships were lying at anchor in anchorage
7、 positions designated by the harbour authority in Sasebo，JapanDuring a 56-knot typhoon the ships collided after dragging their anchorsIt was held that neither ship was at fault，and each should bear its own damages One vessel is to blame Where damage results wholly from the negligence of one ship she
8、 will be liable for all liabilities arising from the collision.Both vessels are to blameSBoth vessels are to blame and degree of fault can be apportionedSBoth vessels are to blame but the degree of fault cannot be determinedDavies v Mann(1842)10 M&W 546 The owner of a donkey,which had been negligent
9、ly left hobbled and unguarded on a highway,sued the defendant，by the negligence of whose servant in driving along the highway at too rapid a speed the donkey was run over and injured.Multiple collision situations A common occurrence is the multiple collision situation,or a slight variation of this w
10、hereunder a third vessel might be forced through the negligence of two other vessels in collision to take evasive action which,combined possibly with additional negligence on her part，results in damage or loss to herself either by,for example,going aground or by coming into contact with property bel
11、onging to yet another party such as a harbour wall or a pier or wharf.According to law,it expressly allows for the apportionment of fault where loss or damage is caused to one or more vessels as a result of the fault of two or more vessels The Oldekerk 1974 l Lloyds Rep95 A multiple collision took p
12、lace in the Nieuwe Maas area of Rotterdam in October 1969.The ships involved were the Belgian vessel Anvers，the Dutch vessel Oldekerk and the South American vessel Perija,all motor vesselsAll three ships had pilots on board.The Anvers was moving up river on the south side，the Perija was going down r
13、iver on the north side and the Oldekerk,without her own motive power,was being towed by a tug from a southside berth to a northside berth further downstream.Her intention to 1eave the berth was communicated via shore radar transmitter to the other two ships.She indicated that she was leaving the ber
14、th and would be proceeding to port.Accordingly,Anvers proceeded at half speed altering slightly to portNext,the tow ropes parted and Oldekerk went across the river at some speed.The Anvers hit her and then both Oldekerk and Anvers collided with Perija.The owners of Oldekerk admitted liability but so
15、ught and obtained a decree to limit their liability on the basis that the accident had occurred without their actual fault or privityThis made it relevant for the owners of the Perija to try to establish the partial fault of the Anvers which they attempted to do by alleging that the Anvers had faile
16、d to stop her engines when it was clear that the Oldekerk was not holding back but coming out into the river,had failed to keep to her own side of the river，had failed to put her enginesfull asternearly enough and finally had failed to let drop her anchorsThe divided damages rule1.Collision involvin
17、g damage to ship only2.Collision involving ship and cargo damaged only3.Collision involving ship and cargo damaged and loss of life and personal injury to crew.Arrest of ShipsThe definition of“arrest”The purpose of“arrest”Procedure for an action of“arrest”Alternative ship arrestThe end of“arrest”The
18、 definition of“arrest”The definition of“arrest”in the Convention is the detention of a ship by judicial process to secure a maritime claim,but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgement.The purpose of“arrest”(i)To obtain security for a maritime claim,and(ii)To
19、 secure the defendants appearance and/or to the admiralty jurisdictionAlternative ship arrest The 1952 Arrest Convention introduced Alternative ship arrest.The main difference between arresting the offending ship and the alternative ship is that the relevant person when the action is brought(in rem
20、claim form issued)must be the beneficial owner of the ship being arrestedCase in pointThe Span Terza(1982)The shipowners had a claim arising out of the timecharter of their shipThey arrested the Span Terza，a ship which was owned by the timecharterers Question:1.Was the arrest held good or not?and wh
21、y?The end of“arrest”SecurityMBail bond Payment into court Bank guaranteeMP&I Club guaranteeChapter Seven Salvage ContentsThe principles of salvageThe objects of salvageElements of“Pure Salvage”ClaimsMisconduct of SalvorsSalvage AwardsSalvage under ContractThe principles of salvage Salvage is therefo
22、re quite different from restitution.It involves an entitlement to a reward：much more than mere reimbursement of expensesIt has to be sharply distinguishedSalvage is a peculiarity of maritime lawIt can never apply away from the sea The objects of salvageMMaritime propertyMLife salvageMaritime propert
23、yVessel(her apparel)Cargo(maritime characteristic)Freight(at risk)Case in point:The Gas Float Whitton(No.2)(1897)A lightship,shaped like a boat,containing a large gas tank fuelling a light,designed for mooring in tidal waters,and with her light lit by night as an aid for navigation,broke from her mo
24、orings while in the process of being moved in a tidal part of the Humber and was recovered.No salvage reward was payable.Life salvage Life salvage independent of property is a rare occurrence and reported cases this century are almost,if not entirely,nonexistent.Where,however,as is usually the case，
25、life and property are saved in one and the same operationit is the custom and practice to award a greater remunerationthan if property alone had been saved.If there has been saving of life at some point of time in the salvage operation,then ship andor cargo-owners as owners of the salved properties
26、may find themselves liable to pay life salvage，but where life only is saved there is no binding legal obligation.Perhaps a secondary reason for there being no legal obligation is that the saving of human life should not need financial incentive.It should be instinctive in all human beings who behave
27、 reasonably.That there is no remuneration legally payable for the saving of human life is confirmed by the International Convention on Salvage l 989 which has the force of law in the United Kingdom(see section 224 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995)This does not apply legally to salvage operations be
28、fore 1 January l 995 However，under Part II in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may pay for life salvage in UK watersThe Convention does countenance the enhancing of a reward made for saving property or for preserving the environment if life has been saved in the same overall operation Th
29、e duty on Masters to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea，within the limits of not endangering his own vessel and persons thereon,is,not surprisingly,preserved by Article l 0 of the ConventionCase in point:The Helmsman(1950)84 L1.L.Rep207 A tanker lay alongside a steamship
30、which was in turn moored alongside a wharf on the Tyne.The former was transferring oil to the latter.The steamships moorings broke and both ships drifted across the river at the mercy of the tide and a gale force wind.With the aid of tugs the ships were reberthed.The steamship paid salvage but it wa
31、s disputed that the tanker had ever been in dangerstated by one court “standing by or escorting a distressed ship in a position to give aid if it becomes necessary,giving information on the channel to follow.to avoid running aground,and carrying a message as a result of which necessary aid and equip
32、ment are forthcoming have all qualified.”A“distinguishable”injury“is some type of damage caused by the salvor to the salved vessel other than that which she would have suffered had salvage efforts not been undertaken to extricate her from the perils to which she was exposed.”Salvage AwardsFactors co
33、nsidered in determining a salvage award:(1)the labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service;(2)the promptitude,skill,and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the property;(3)the value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service and the degree of
34、 danger to which such property was exposed;(4)the risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril;(5)the value of the saved property;and(6)the degree of danger from which the property was rescued.The Glengyle(1898)78 L.T.801 The Glengyle came into collision with anothe
35、r vessel while passing through the Straits of Gibraltar.Two salvage steamers specially built for and employed in salvage services immediately proceeded from Gibraltar,and saved her from certain total loss.The value of the salved vessel was 76,596,and the values of the steamers were20,000 and22,000.H
36、owever,a salvage award of19,000 would be made Salvage under ContractFirst,there is the agreement entered into by the master of a ship in danger,under the stress of circumstance Secondly,there is the agreement between the owners and a professional salvage outfit after the immediate danger has passed,
37、to raise or refloat a sunken or stranded ship or to salvage its cargo.Chapter Eight Towage Contents:Towage Contracts Duties of Tug Duties of Tow Liabilities of the Tug and the Tow to Third Parties Towage ContractsSDefinitionSTowage contracts and contracts of affreightment Article 155 A contract of s
38、ea towage is a contract whereby the tugowner undertakes to tow an object by sea with a tug from one place to another and the tow party pays the towage.Towage contracts and contracts of affreightment A towage contract involves an undertaking by one party to move another partys vessel(such as a barge)
39、or structure from one place to another.A contract of affreightment essentially is an undertaking by one party to transport cargo from one place to another.Duties of Tug MProvide a seaworthy vessel with a qualified master and crewM Have proper lighting and must obey all navigational rules of the road
40、 MMaintain a watch over the tow during its voyageMTo save the tow from sinking if possible The Undaunted(1886)The Knight Commander was towing the Undaunted from Le Havre to Swansea when her bunkers got low.She cast off the tow and ran for port for coal.She later returned and completed the towage.The
41、 Undaunted docked five days late.The owners of the Knight Commander were liable to pay five days demurrage by way of damagesA tug with insufficient coal aboard to complete the tow is not an efficient tugDuties of TowMdisclose all information relevant Mproviding a seaworthy vessel Mproperly manned Th
42、e Aldora 19751 Lloyds Rep617 A 10,500一ton vessel loaded with full cargo of aluminum ore in bulk went aground on a sand bank in February 1972She sustained damage to her bottom plates.Four tugs went to her assistance and a harbour pilot boarded.There was an agreement that attempts should be made to re
43、float her.With tug assistance and under the direction of the pilot.The vessel was quickly refloated and subsequently towed up channel to a buoy to await permission to enter Blyth harbour.Legal action was taken by the tugowners and the pilot claiming salvage services Questions?1.where and when did sa
44、lvage service terminate?2.whether interest could be claimed?Liabilities of the Tug and the Tow to Third Parties Where a third party seeks recovery against either the tug,tow,or both for loss of cargo,personal injury,or damage to other vessels,each vessel will be held liable for damages in proportion
45、 to its individual degree of fault.If damage is caused by a towed vessel,the courts will apply the theory of“the dominant mind”to shift liability for the damage from the tow to the tug,which was actually in control of the tow.However,that theory may be overcome if the tug can present evidence that t
46、he damage was in fact the fault of the tow.The negligence of the tug cannot be attributed to the tow under a towage contract between a separately owned tug and tow.Therefore,an innocent tow cannot be held liable for damages caused by the tug.The“Niobe”(1988)59 L.T.257 The Niobe was being towed by th
47、e tug Flying Serpent under a towage contract.Both vessels collided with the Valetta，but the only damage to the Valetta was caused by the Flying SerpentThere was a bad look-out on the Niobe,and if those on board her had seen the Valetta approaching,orders could have been given to the Flying Serpent a
48、nd the collision would have been avoided.The owners of the Niobe contended that they were not responsible for the negligence of those on board the Flying Serpent,for they were not their servants but were independent contractors Chapter Nine General AverageContents:SIntroductionSThe General Average L
49、oss:RequirementsSThe York-Antwerp RulesSThe New Jason ClauseSThe General Average StatementIntroductionMDefinitionMTypes of Average Particular Average General AverageDefinitionArticle 193 General average means the extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure intentionally and reasonably made or incurred fo
50、r the common safety for the purpose of preserving from peril the ship,goods or other property involved in a common maritime adventure.Types of Average “Average”is a term of art in shipping and marine insuranceIt means“loss”and in the main,the loss will in the first instance lie where it falls.If a s
