《Maritime-Law-《海商法》英文课件2.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Maritime-Law-《海商法》英文课件2.ppt（84页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Maritime Law 海商法英文课件（2）（6-10章）,Maritime Law ,CONTENTS,CHAPTER 1 Admiralty Jurisdiction and Maritime LawCHAPTER 2 Ships and its Rights in RemCHAPTER 3 Contract of Carriage of Goods by SeaCHAPTER 4 Bills of LadingCHAPTER 5 CharterpartiesCHAPTER 6 CollisionsCHAPTER 7 Salvage CHAPTER 8 Towage CHAPTER 9
2、General AverageCHAPTER 10 Limitation of Liability,CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Admiralty J,CHAPTER 6 Collisions,CHAPTER 6 Collisions,Contents:Introduction Types of collision The divided damages rule Arrest of Ships,Contents:,Introduction Definition of collsion Loss or damage caused without actual contact,Intr
3、oduction,Definition of collsion Article 165 , MC Collision of ships 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
4、with the ships mentioned in Article 3 of this Code.,Definition of collsion,Loss or damage 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 station
5、ary. But in a broad sense，collision is used，to include allision，and perhaps other species of 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 wit
6、h stationary vessels or other floating structures，but also with piers，wharves，bridges and other shoreside installations,Loss or damage caused without,Inevitable accident “Inevitable accident” has been defined as a collision which a party could not possibly prevent by the exercise of ordinary care，ca
7、ution and maritime skill,Inevitable accident,A case in point:The Fames River Transport lnc. v. Nasenbulk Two ships were lying at anchor in anchorage positions designated by the harbour authority in Sasebo，JapanDuring a 56-knot typhoon the ships collided after dragging their anchorsIt was held that n
8、either ship was at fault，and each should bear its own damages,A case in point:,One vessel is to blame,Where damage results wholly from the negligence of one ship she will be liable for all liabilities arising from the collision.,One vessel is to blame Wh,Both vessels are to blameBoth vessels are to
9、blame and degree of fault can be apportionedBoth vessels are to blame but the degree of fault cannot be determined,Both vessels are to blame,Davies v Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546 The owner of a donkey, which had been negligently left hobbled and unguarded on a highway, sued the defendant，by the negligen
10、ce of whose servant in driving along the highway at too rapid a speed the donkey was run over and injured.,Davies v Mann (1842) 10 M & W,Multiple collision situations A common occurrence is the multiple collision situation, or a slight variation of this whereunder a third vessel might be forced thro
11、ugh 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 belonging to yet another party such as a harb
12、our 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,Multiple collision situations,The Oldekerk 1974 l Lloyds Rep95 A multiple collision took place in th
13、e 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 river on
14、 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 berth
15、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
16、sought 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 fai
17、led 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 anchors,The Oldekerk 1974 l Lloyds,The divided d
18、amages rule1. Collision involving 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.,The divided damages rule,Arrest of ShipsThe definition of “arrest”The purpose of “arrest”Procedure for an
19、 action of “arrest”Alternative ship arrestThe end of “arrest”,Arrest of Ships,The 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
20、a judgement.,The definition of “arrest”,The purpose of “arrest”(i) To obtain security for a maritime claim, and(ii) To secure the defendants appearance and /or to the admiralty jurisdiction,The purpose of “arrest”,Alternative ship arrest The 1952 Arrest Convention introduced Alternative ship arrest.
21、 The main difference between arresting the offending ship and the alternative ship is that the relevant person when the action is brought (in rem claim form issued) must be the beneficial owner of the ship being arrested,Alternative ship arrest,Case in pointThe Span Terza (1982) The shipowners had a
22、 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 why?,Case in point,The end of “arrest”SecurityBail bond Payment into court Bank guaranteeP&I Club guarantee,The end of “arres
23、t”,Chapter Seven Salvage,Chapter Seven Salvage,ContentsThe principles of salvageThe objects of salvageElements of “Pure Salvage” ClaimsMisconduct of SalvorsSalvage AwardsSalvage under Contract,Contents,The principles of salvage Salvage is therefore quite different from restitution. It involves an en
24、titlement 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 principles of salvage,The objects of salvageMaritime propertyLife salvage,The objects of salvage,Maritime propertyVess
25、el (her apparel)Cargo (maritime characteristic)Freight (at risk),Maritime property,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 navi
26、gation, broke from her moorings while in the process of being moved in a tidal part of the Humber and was recovered. No salvage reward was payable.,Case in point:,Life salvage Life salvage independent of property is a rare occurrence and reported cases this century are almost, if not entirely, nonex
27、istent. Where, however, as is usually the case，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
28、 cargo-owners as owners of the salved properties 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 s
29、hould be instinctive in all human beings who behave reasonably.,Life salvage,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 Ship
30、ping Act 1995)This does not apply legally to salvage operations before 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 e
31、nvironment if life has been saved in the same overall operation The 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 Convention,That there i
32、s no remune,Case in point:The Helmsman (1950) 84 L1. L. Rep207 A tanker lay alongside a steamship 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
33、a gale force wind. With the aid of tugs the ships were reberthed. The steamship paid salvage but it was disputed that the tanker had ever been in danger,Case in point:,stated by one court “standing by or escorting a distressed ship in a position to give aid if it becomes necessary, giving informatio
34、n on the channel to follow. . . to avoid running aground, and carrying a message as a result of which necessary aid and equipment are forthcoming have all qualified.”,Maritime-Law-海商法英文课件2,A “distinguishable” injury “is some type of damage caused by the salvor to the salved vessel other than that wh
35、ich she would have suffered had salvage efforts not been undertaken to extricate her from the perils to which she was exposed.”,A “distinguishable” inj,Salvage AwardsFactors considered in determining a salvage award:(1) the labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service;(2) the promp
36、titude, 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 danger to which such property was exposed;(4) the risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impen
37、ding peril;(5) the value of the saved property; and(6) the degree of danger from which the property was rescued.,Maritime-Law-海商法英文课件2,The Glengyle (1898) 78 L.T.801 The Glengyle came into collision with another vessel while passing through the Straits of Gibraltar.Two salvage steamers specially bui
38、lt 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. However, a salvage award of19, 000 would be made,The Glengyle (1898) 78 L.T,Salvage und
39、er 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, to raise or refloat a sunken or stranded ship or to s
40、alvage its cargo.,Salvage under Contract,Chapter Eight Towage,Chapter Eight Towage,Contents:Towage Contracts Duties of Tug Duties of Tow Liabilities of the Tug and the Tow to Third Parties,Contents:,Towage ContractsDefinitionTowage contracts and contracts of affreightment,Towage Contracts,Article 15
41、5 A contract of sea 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.,Article 155,Towage contracts and contracts of affreightment A towage contract involves an undertaking by one party to move another
42、partys vessel (such as a barge) 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.,Towage contracts and contracts,Duties of Tug Provide a seaworthy vessel with a qualified master and crew Have p
43、roper lighting and must obey all navigational rules of the road Maintain a watch over the tow during its voyageTo save the tow from sinking if possible,Duties of Tug,The Undaunted(1886) The Knight Commander was towing the Undaunted from Le Havre to Swansea when her bunkers got low. She cast off the
44、tow and ran for port for coal. She later returned and completed the towage. The 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 tug,The Undaunted(18
45、86),Duties of Towdisclose all information relevant providing a seaworthy vessel properly manned,Duties of Tow,The 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
46、tugs went to her assistance and a harbour pilot boarded. There was an agreement that attempts should be made to refloat 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 harbo
47、ur. Legal action was taken by the tugowners and the pilot claiming salvage services Questions? 1. where and when did salvage service terminate? 2. whether interest could be claimed?,The Aldora 19751 Lloyds Rep,Liabilities of the Tug and the Tow to Third Parties Where a third party seeks recovery aga
48、inst 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 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 liabi
49、lity 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 the 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 se
50、parately owned tug and tow. Therefore, an innocent tow cannot be held liable for damages caused by the tug.,Liabilities of the Tug and th,The “Niobe” (1988) 59 L.T. 257 The Niobe was being towed by the tug Flying Serpent under a towage contract. Both vessels collided with the Valetta，but the only da
