About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Ocean L. Memo 1 (1976)

handle is hein.journals/ocoaslme3 and id is 1 raw text is: Ocean Law Memo PREPARED BY THE OCEAN RESOURCES LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON LAW SCHOOL, EUGENE, OREGON 97403, AS AN ADVISORY SERVICE OF THE SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM. February 17, 197f Vol. 3, No. 1 DAMAGES IN MARITIME COLLISIONS & GRO UNDINGS The United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. Inc. The Eoual Division of Damages Rule. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1854 adopted the rule that in a maritime collision the aggregate damages suffered must be divided equally among vessels found to be at fault. The U.S. Supreme Court ex- plained this rule, called the Equal Division of Damages Rule, (or moiety ) in The Sapphire: Where both vessels are in fault the sums representing the damage sustained by each must be added together and the aggregate divided between the two. This is in effect deducting the lesser from the greater and dividing the ,remainder. But this rule is applicable only where it appears that both vessels have been injured. If one in fault has sustained no in- jury, it is liable for half the damages sustained by the other, though that other was also in fault. The rule at the time that it was adopted was thought to produce a just and equitable alloca- tion of damages. It was also thought to be the best rule to promote safety and caution in navi- gation. The rule of equal division of damages has received a great deal of criticism from the courts and from legal scholars. Nevertheless, the rule continued to govern maritime collisions for more than a century. It should be noted that this rule applied to damages arising from rammings or groundings caused by embarrassment of navigation as well as collisions. Then, on May 19th, 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of The United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. Inc. overturned the equal division of damages rule and held damages will be apportioned on the basis of the degree of fault of each vessel. How Did The Case Arise? On a clear but windy December night in 1968, the Mary A. Whalen, a coastal tanker owned by the . . . Reliable Transfer Company, embarked from Constable Hook, New Jersey, for Island Park, New York, with a load of fuel oil. The voyage ended, instead, with the vessel stranded on a sand bar off Rockaway Point out- side New York Harbor The Whalen's course led across the mouth of the Rockaway Inlet, a narrow body of water that lies between a breakwater to the south- east and the shoreline of Coney Island to the Northwest. The breakwater is ordinarily marked at its southernmost point by a flashing light maintained by the Coast Guard. The light was not operating that night. As the Whalen approached Rockaway Point about half an hour later, her captain attempted to pass a tug with a barge in tow ahead, but after determining that he could not overtake them, decided to make a 180 degree turn to pass astern of the barge. At this time the tide was at flood, and the waves, whipped by northwest winds of gale force, were eight to ten feet high. After making the 180 degree turn eastwardly, he believed that the ves- sel was then south of the breakwater and that he was heading her for the open sea. He was wrong. About a minute later the light structure on the southernmost point of the breakwater came into view. Turning to avoid the rocks visible ahead, the Whalen ran aground in the sand. Reliable Transfer Company then filed an action against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Federal Torts Claims Act, for the damages sustained by the Whalen. The District Court found the Whalen responsible for 75% of the fault contributing to the grounding, and the Coast Guard in failing to carry out it's duty to maintain aids to navigation 25% at fault. The court felt that the Whalen's captain failed to use the caution necessary to resolve the situation safely: Equipped with look-out, chart, search- light, radio-telephone, and radar, he made use of nothing except his own guesswork judgment. After . . . turning in a loop towards the north as to pass astern of the tow, he should have made sure of his position before setting his new 730 (degree) course. The fact that a northwest gale blowing at 45 knots with eight to ten foot seas made it difficult to see, emphasizes the need for caution rather than excusing a turn into the unknown... The court went on to say that even though it believed the Coast Guard to be only 25% at fault, the established rule of equal division of damages required each party to bear one-half of the loss. This rqling was appealed to the. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (N.Y., Conn., & Ver.). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's holding. It held that the District Court was not in error in its determination of the relative fault of each party. The court also commented on the un- fairness of the equal division of damages rule, but held that it must adhere to it. Any change in the rule must come from either the U.S. Supreme Court

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most