Rules 13-17 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

Group 1: Maeve, Rajeev, Rahul, Rowena

Maritime Law

Introduction

Convention on the International Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

First International Maritime conference on regulations – 1889 at WashingtonAdopted by US and UK, in 1897

1910 Brussels Conference – Remained in force until 1954

1954, 1972 – Amendments

Last major amendments – Oct.1972/ Came in force 1977

Ratified by159 Countries

Objective: Prevent Collisions and to minimise their effects

Obligation: To give effect to the rules and other annexes

Introduction

United Kingdom :

Statutory instrument – Merchant Shipping

(Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996

Under the authority of Sec. 81/ MSA 95

Singapore: Merchant Shipping Act (Ch. 179/ Sec. 208)

Extract from Relevant Court judgment – To show

how the rules are interpreted.

Collision Regulations

Collision Regulations are broken into five parts.

Particularly relevant to liability for collision are:

Part B – Steering and sailing Rules (Rules 5 to 19/ Divided in 3 sections)

and

Part D – Sound and Light Signals (Rules 34 to 36)

Starboard (Right/ Green) and Port (left/ Red)

Rule 13 Overtaking

Rule 13Overtaking

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

• Takes precedence over Rules 12 to 18

• Prime responsibility for keeping out of way is allocated to the overtaking vessel

Head On

Port Starboard

Crossing Crossing

22.5° 22.5°

Overtaking

Rule 13 Overtaking

(c) When a vessel is in doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these rules or relieve her of the duly of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

Situation 1 Situation 2

Baines Hawkins – Moilere (1893) – Overtaking rule applied

Aurigua – Manuel Campos (1977) – Distance too great to apply overtaking

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x----

5 nmile

-----------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------x-----

1 nmile

-----------------------------------

Rule 13 Overtaking

In Olympian – Nowy Sacz, 1977, Court of Appeal:

‘Once an overtaking vessel, always an overtaking vessel’

(Marsden/ 13th Ed./ Pg. 260)

Overtaking in narrow channels and traffic lanes

The Admiralty Court in The Ore Chief (1974) concluded:

‘It was not seamanlike for Ore Chief to overtake Olympic Torch… because the two ships

were

large vessels entering a narrow and shallow stretch of river after having made a turn…she

should have

reduced speed for good seamanship required that overtaking should have been

postponed.’

Rule 14 Head-on situation

Rule 14Head-on Situation

(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

• Applicable to Power-driven vessels only

• Equal responsibility for keeping out of the way on each

of two vessels involved

• Alter course to starboard

• Course is direction of ship’s head and not the

course made good

• Court decisions on ‘Nearly reciprocal course’:

6° of being opposite

ALTER COURSE TO STARBOARD

6°

Rule 14 Head-on situation

(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

(c) When a vessel is in doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

• When a vessel is in doubt whether a meeting or crossing situation or is in doubt whether the approaching vessel is an ordinary power-driven vessel or a hampered vessel, she shall assume that Rule 14 applies and alter course to starboard.

• Avoid altering course to port when in doubt whether crossing or head-on

Rule 14 – Head-on situation

• The British Engineer – Karanan (1945):

British Engineer was blamed for altering course to port in an head-on situation.

Lord Merriman held that ,

‘As to the British Engineer that she was to blame for

porting (she was on a duty to pass port to port in the

channel, and she should have appreciated why the

green of Karanan was exposed); as to the Kananan,

that she was negligent in regard to her look-out, but

she was to blame for hard-a-starboarding at full

speed when she saw that the British Engineer was

committed to a port swing – Apportionment : Kananan

2/5th, British Engineer 3/5th ’

Karanan

British Engineer

Rule 16: Action by the Give-way vessel

Rule 16Action by Give-way vessel

Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

• It overlaps with rule 8(c), which provides for any action to be made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship

• In The Billings Victory (1948), Wilmer J. held: ‘The duty of give-way vessel is to take timely action to keep clear. Moreover it is her duty to act…handsomely, so as to leave stand-on vessel in no possible doubt as to what the give-way vessel is doing.’

• In The Maloja II (1993), Sheen J. said:

‘The structure of the collision regulations is designed to ensure that, whenever possible, ships will not reach a close quarter situation in which there is risk of collision and in which decisions have to be taken without time for proper thought……Manoeuvres should be such as to be readily apparent to the other ship…’

Rule 15 – Crossing Situation

Rule 15Crossing Situation

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve the risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

• Apply to power driven vessels (PDV)

• Not applicable when either both or one of the PDVs : Hampered such as RAM, NUC etc.

• In narrow channels and TSS – PDVs must comply with this reg. in crossing situations

• The requirement to avoid crossing ahead applies only when risk of collision exists. Not applicable at long ranges (King Stephen –Ashton/ 1905)

Stand-on vessel

Give-way Vessel

Rule 15 – Crossing Situation

Alter to starboard/ Pass astern of another vessel Stop engines/ Allow the stand-on vessel to pass

ahead For vessels approaching near stbd. beam from

close distance, alter to port/ Take a complete round and pass from astern

Rule 17 – Action by Stand-on vessel

Rule 17Action by stand-on vessel

(a)(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her

course and speed. (ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep her out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these rules.

• Keep Course and speed

• According to Sheen Justice in The Angelic Spirit (Angelic Spirit – Y Mariner/1994),

‘When a stand-on ship takes action as permitted by rule 17 (a) ii, it must to bold action and it does not make the matter worse.’

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

• Rule 12, 13, 15 and 18 require one of two vessels to keep out of the way

Rule 15 & 17

(c) The power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub paragraph (a)(ii) to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her port side.

(d) This rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

• Avoid turning to port to avoid collision with another power driven vessel

• The Topaz and Irapua [2003] EWHC 320: Irapua (Give-way) (From Necochea to Fortaleza)

Topaz (Stand-on) (From Mohammedia to Ponta Ubu)

The Topaz and Irapua (2003)

Topaz

Irapua

Irapua TopazFailed to comply with Rule 5 (lookout), Rule 7 (Risk of collision), Rule 8 (Action to avoid collision), Rule 15 (Crossing situation), Rule 16 (Action by give-way vessel) - Serious fault

Failed to comply with rule 17 a (ii) or 17 b.

Basis blameworthiness and causation, apportionment was 80/20 in favour of Topaz.

Principle issue : Whether ‘Irapua’ was alone to blame for the collision or whether ‘Topaz’ was at fault and if so to what extent?

Conclusion

In maritime cases, Each case is to be taken in the round and the faults of each ship weighed in balance before an apportionment is made.

In another case of ‘Haugland v Karamea (1922)’, The House of lords emphasised that in apportioning liability under the act (Maritime Conventions Act 1911) only faults that contributed to the damage or loss should be taken into account.

In apportioning liability the degree of culpability and causative potency of all relevant faults must be taken into account (per Lord Brandon, Tulane Law Review 1977)

Bibliography

• Howard Bennett, Maritime Law, Course Notes 2013.

• Simon Gault, Steven J. Hazelwood, 2003. Marsden on Collisions at Sea.

13th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell

• A N Cockroft, J N F Lameijer, 2012. A guide to the collision

avoidance rules. 7th ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann

• IMO 2003. COLREGS. 4th ed: IMO Publication

• The Topaz and Irapua (2003) EWHC 320

• The Ore Chief Lloyd's Law Reports, [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 427

• Haugland v Karamea Lloyd's Law Reports , (1921) 9 Ll.L.Rep. 375

• The Angelic Spirit [ 1994] 2 LI LR 595

• The Maloja II (1993) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48

• The 'British Engineer", Lloyd's Law Reports, (1944) 78 LL.L.Rep. 31

• Billings Victory (1949) 82 LI.L. Rep. 877

• Baines Hawkins (Moliere) 1893 7 Asp. 364 69

Thank you