Collision Apportionment and the Crossing Rule

Both vessels were at fault, and the question is the proportion. The container ship's officer of the watch failed to plot a radar contact at 6 nm in clear visibility, took no action until 0.8 nm, and then applied a starboard turn that may have closed the crossing. A power-driven vessel approaching another so as to involve risk of collision must keep a proper lookout, use all available means including radar, and take early and substantial action. Failing to plot the contact is a serious breach. The fishing vessel was also at fault. A vessel engaged in fishing is not relieved of the duty to keep a proper lookout and to take action to avoid collision, and holding course on an assumption that the other vessel will pass ahead is not seamanship. Her lower speed and restricted maneuverability due to trawling gear mitigate but do not eliminate her share. On these facts the container ship's failure is the more serious, because it had the better means of detection, the higher speed, and the later and more abrupt action. A tribunal would likely apportion the greater share to the container ship, perhaps two-thirds to one-third, with the fishing vessel bearing a substantial minority share for her own failure to act.

The crossing rule applies where two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision. It requires the vessel with the other on her own starboard side to keep out of the way and, if necessary, to avoid crossing ahead. The fishing vessel was on the container ship's starboard side, so the container ship was the give-way vessel. But the rule does not put the entire burden on the give-way vessel. The stand-on vessel must keep her course and speed, but she is not entitled to hold on blindly when collision becomes imminent; at that point she must take action to avoid collision. The fishing vessel saw the container ship's lights and assumed it would pass ahead, which is precisely the assumption the rules warn against. Her failure to take action when the risk became apparent is her own fault. The crossing rule allocates the primary duty, not the whole liability, and apportionment remains a matter of relative fault. The argument therefore fails, though it supports a larger share for the container ship.

Speed matters because a vessel must proceed at a safe speed having regard to visibility, traffic density, and her maneuvering characteristics. Eighteen knots in clear visibility is not inherently unsafe, but the higher the speed the earlier the detection and action must be, and the shorter the time available to correct an error. The container ship's speed therefore aggravates the consequences of her failure to plot the contact: at 18 knots she covered 6 nm in about 20 minutes, leaving ample time that was not used. The fishing vessel's trawling status matters because a vessel engaged in fishing is restricted in her ability to maneuver, and other vessels must keep out of her way. That status supports the container ship's primary duty to keep clear. But it does not excuse the fishing vessel from keeping a lookout or from taking action when collision is imminent, and her slow speed of 6 knots reduced her ability to escape but also made her easier to track. Both factors feed into the apportionment rather than deciding it.