Scholarlink

M.V. “YONG FA 2” owned by Plaintiff towed shipowner and M.V. “HUAN YU 1” owned by Defendant tugboat shipowner were engaged in a bargaging operation on the high sea. At the beginning of the transfer operation, M.V. “YONG FA 2” was on the leeward side of M.V. “HUAN YU 1”, and later M.V. “YONG FA 1” was also asked to berth at M.V. “HUAN YU 1” as soon as possible to transfer the fishing goods. After obtaining the consent of M.V. “YONG FA 2”, M.V. “HUAN YU 1” planned to turn clockwise and place M.V. “YONG FA 2” on the windward side of M.V. “HUAN YU 1”. In the process of carrying out side-tow operation, the wind and waves were large, and the two ships had a compression collision due to negligence and not keeping enough alert, resulting in the sunken stern starboard wall of M.V. “YONG FA 2”, and the damage of other parts. Plaintiff held that the collision caused the ship to return home in advance, and suffered huge loss such as ship repair fee, travel expense during repair, agency fee, loss of shipping schedule and fuel consumption of the ship, but Defendant refused to compensate for the loss, so Plaintiff filed an action before the court. The court held that Defendant should compensate Plaintiff for the ship repair fee, ship repair agent fee and other fee and the corresponding interest at a rate of 70%. Because M.V. “HUAN YU 1” bore primary collision responsibility. Knowing that the risk of operation on the windward side was significantly higher than that on the leeward side, both sides still neglected to look out and failed to take necessary precautions, in violation of the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea Article 5 and Article 7, and both sides were at fault. M.V. “HUAN YU 1” was a tugboat, M.V. “YONG FA 2” as the towed ship’s maneuvering ability was limited to a certain extent, and M.V. “HUAN YU 1” ship’s hull, tonnage, power was much larger than M.V. “YONG FA 2”, M.V. “HUAN YU 1” ship’s fault for the collision accident was greater than M.V. “YONG FA 2”, so the court confirmed that M.V. “HUAN YU 1” should bear 70% of the fault. M.V. “YONG FA 2” should bear 30% of the fault liability.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ningbo Yongfa Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd. v. Winray Investment Group Co., Limited

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Martin Davies,
  • Jiang Lin

摘要

M.V. “YONG FA 2” owned by Plaintiff towed shipowner and M.V. “HUAN YU 1” owned by Defendant tugboat shipowner were engaged in a bargaging operation on the high sea. At the beginning of the transfer operation, M.V. “YONG FA 2” was on the leeward side of M.V. “HUAN YU 1”, and later M.V. “YONG FA 1” was also asked to berth at M.V. “HUAN YU 1” as soon as possible to transfer the fishing goods. After obtaining the consent of M.V. “YONG FA 2”, M.V. “HUAN YU 1” planned to turn clockwise and place M.V. “YONG FA 2” on the windward side of M.V. “HUAN YU 1”. In the process of carrying out side-tow operation, the wind and waves were large, and the two ships had a compression collision due to negligence and not keeping enough alert, resulting in the sunken stern starboard wall of M.V. “YONG FA 2”, and the damage of other parts. Plaintiff held that the collision caused the ship to return home in advance, and suffered huge loss such as ship repair fee, travel expense during repair, agency fee, loss of shipping schedule and fuel consumption of the ship, but Defendant refused to compensate for the loss, so Plaintiff filed an action before the court. The court held that Defendant should compensate Plaintiff for the ship repair fee, ship repair agent fee and other fee and the corresponding interest at a rate of 70%. Because M.V. “HUAN YU 1” bore primary collision responsibility. Knowing that the risk of operation on the windward side was significantly higher than that on the leeward side, both sides still neglected to look out and failed to take necessary precautions, in violation of the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea Article 5 and Article 7, and both sides were at fault. M.V. “HUAN YU 1” was a tugboat, M.V. “YONG FA 2” as the towed ship’s maneuvering ability was limited to a certain extent, and M.V. “HUAN YU 1” ship’s hull, tonnage, power was much larger than M.V. “YONG FA 2”, M.V. “HUAN YU 1” ship’s fault for the collision accident was greater than M.V. “YONG FA 2”, so the court confirmed that M.V. “HUAN YU 1” should bear 70% of the fault. M.V. “YONG FA 2” should bear 30% of the fault liability.