The Collision Regulation Rules - Essay Example

General definition: In the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act a ship was defined to include "every of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars". And by the same section, part VIII of the Act, "vessel was defined as including "any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation" (Ozcyair, 1998). However, the definition of this Act has been extended by a number of subsequent amendments. Collision regulations: The collision regulation rules define the "vessel" as an every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable to be used as a mean of transportation on the water1 (Mandaraka 2001). The Merchant Shipping Regulations of 1996 (MSA) provides that the definition of the word "ship" includes hovercraft. More specifically the regulation 2 (1) provides for the application of the Collision Regulations to seaplanes registered in the UK. Moreover, the 1976 Convention does not apply to floating platforms constructed for the purpose of exploring or exploiting the sea-bed, also does not apply to hovercraft.( Chorley & Giles 1999) Section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 defines a ship as every description of vessel used in navigation. Section 58 of this act, clearly states that the act applies to a master or employee of a United Kingdom ship or a foreign ship in United Kingdom waters, who does any act that causes or is likely to cause serious injury to a person, or any act that would prevent serious injury to a person (Mandaraka 2001). However, the section 310 of the Act makes the definition of the ship, applicable to hovercraft. By section 311 of the same act, the Secretary of state has power to declare anything which is designed or adapted for sea uses to be a ship of any purpose of the MSAs. However, this power is not yet exercised (Mandaraka 2001). Furthermore, it can be considered that there is a gap in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1995, considering the definition in the words "used in navigation". There is no clear definition in relation with the navigation and therefore relevant definition given from decided cases. Case: Steedman v Scofield The plaintiff was riding a jet-ski when he was involved in a collision with a speedboat driven from the first defendant. The collision was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff while acting as agent or servant of the water-skier. The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendants for his personal injuries. It was contended that the action was time barred by the time the writ was issued under the provisions of the S8 of the MCA 1911 (Fizpatrick &Adderson, 2005). The issue was whether the jet-ski was a "vessel used for navigation purposes. In the relevant section of the Merchant Act, the "vessel" is defined as any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used in navigation. Also in the same section (742) is defined the ship as every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. (Mandaraka 2001) Therefore in accordance with the above definition, the jet-ski was a "vessel" because it was used in navigation for the purpose of the MSA, and I t was also a "ship" because it was not propelled by oars. However, the admiralty judge held for this case that: "to come within the definition of "ship" in accordance with the MSA the jet-ski had to be a vessel used in navigation. A vessel was usually a hollow receptacle for carrying people and the word "vessel" was used to refer to craft larger than rowing boats and it included every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a mean of transportation in water: a jet-ski was not a vessel!!! The phrase "used in navigation" is referred to the concept of transportation of persons or commodities to intend destination navigation was not considered synonymous with movement in water, but was defined as a movement from one place to another. Therefore, a jet-ski was capable of movement on water but the purpose was not to go from one place to another. It might be possible to navigate a jet-ski but it was not a vessel used in navigation. (Ozcyair, 1998). Consequently, this was not an action to enforce a claim against the owners of a vessel in respect of personal injuries suffered by a person on board another vessel within the meaning the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act. (Mandaraka 2001) Case: RV GOODWIN (2006) 1 Lloyd's Rep 432 In this case the owner of the Yamaha Jet Ski collided with another jet ski. As a result of this collision the passenger of the second Jet Ski was seriously injured. The court in accordance with the section 58 of the MSA 1995, addressed a number of issues, whether the registration was sufficient to satisfy the relevant section, whether the holder of the first jet-ski was technically the master of his jet and most important whether the jet-ski constituted a ship or a vessel used on navigation. In relation with the registration the Yamaha jet-ski was neither registered in the UK nor anywhere else. However, the owner of the jet-ski was Kingdom resident and the court decided that it was sufficient to satisfy section 58 of the Act. Moreover, the court argues that the first jet-ski was a sea-going ship, because it did not set out to sea on a voyage, rather it remained close to land. The court considered that even if it had been set out to sea, it would not be seaworthy for such a voyage. Moreover, in relation to the nature of the jet-ski, the section 58 applies only to ships. In deciding whether the jet-ski as a vessel, the court based on the decision in the case of Steeman v Scofield, based to the similarity of facts. The court considered also the relevant cases of "Von Rocks"2 and "Perks v Clark"3. In Rv Goodwin case, the court accepted the elements in Steedman v Scofield, case in relation with the definition of a craft as a vessel. However the held in this case was that the Jet Ski was not a vessel used in navigation and therefore not a ship for the purposes of criminal prosecution for negligent navigation causing personal damages under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1995. Marine insurance view: Considering that the subject matter in the marine insurance policies is the ship, the old Lloyd's S.G policy provided that the body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, munitions, artillery, boat and other furniture shall be covered ( Chorley & Giles, 1999). In the first schedule to the marine Insurance Act, includes stores and provisions of officers and crew and in the case of vessels engages in a special trade, all the necessary fittings requisites for the trade even when not on board at the time of contract agreement4. However the institutes Hull Clauses 1983 do not specify what is covered. It covers the subject matter as designated in the schedule of the policy form ( Chorley & Giles, 1999).Moreover, the "ship" term is defined in rule 15 of the Rules for construction of policy, as including hull materials, stores and provisions, as well as, the ordinary fittings which includes machinery engine stores etc5. (Boleslaw 2005) Bibliography Boleslaw A. Boaczek (2005), International law, USA, Hardcover, PG 123-125 Mandaraka Sheep A. (2001), Modern Admiralty Law, London, Routledge Cavensish, pg 534-536 Ozcayir, Z. Oya (1998), liability for oil pollution and collisions, London, LLP reference publishing, pg 317-318 Chorley & Giles( 1999) , Shipping law, 8th edition, Financial times, Great Britain , pg 536-537 Fizpatrick D & Adderson M (2005) , Seafarers rights, Oxford University press, London, pg 204 Read More