FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (Hons.) MARINE TECHNOLOGY

SEA AND MARITIME LAW

Name ZAIDAL MALUM B AFIFUDDIN 2015673826

MUHAMMAD AFFIQ B. ZULKEFLI 2015674256
Assignmen Causation in Fact & Causation in Law
t
Lecturer SIR SHARIR AIZAT B. KAMARUDDIN

PART 4 RAS2544A

TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE: Ship Causative Fault

1.0 Background Study

2.0 Content

2.1 Causation in Fact

2.1.1 Case Study: The Empire Jamaica 1995

2.1.2

2.2 Causation in Law

2.2.1 Case study: Carslogie Steamship Co & Royal Norwegian

Government 1952

2.2.2
3.0 Referrences

1.0 Background Study

The purpose of this study is to set out in practical terms the most important legal issues which will

need to be considered in the immediate aftermath of a maritime accident that involve in ship

collison. A ship collision claim require causative fault which lead for the court adjourn to determine

whether the fault actually caused or contributed to the collision. Two category of causative fault is

causation in fact and causation in law which will be discuss on the content of this assignment. The

decision will be made based on the investigation, identification and description of the real sequence

of events, identification of the root and direct causes or factors contributing to the accident and

identifying risk mitigating measures to prevent accidents in the future. Case study will be include in

this assignment for a better understanding in marine accident and therefore to seek answer for why

the collision occur. Finally, and suplementarily, to determine whether it was by default or wrongful

act of any person that led to the loss of another party.

2.0 CONTENT
2.1 Causation in Fact

The causation in fact or also known as without-which-not cause is the collision and damage

resulting from it would not have happened for the defendants fault (AmbulanceChasing, 2016).

If we could go back in time and remove the defendants action from the sequence of events, would

the plaintiff still have been injured. If the answer is no, the defendants behavior is considered the

causation in fact of the plaintiffs injuries. This imposes the duty on the judge to go through all

the phases of the accident, so as to arrive at the last or operating cause, and it is extremely difficult

to determine at what moment one phase came to an end the next began.

2.1.1 Case Study: The Empire Jamaica 1995

On this case study, the owners of a ship which collided with another vessel (Garoet) bring out the

case with another party. The officer of the watch at the time of the collision was not a certificated

officer and had been signed on as chief bot swain instead was treated as, and performed the duties

of, second officer. By the relevant legislation the plaintiffs ship was required to be provided with

at least the first and second mates duly certificated. The plaintiffs admitted liability for the

collision, and now sought a declaration limiting their liability. The competency of officer to perform

his duties was not debate. During the court adjourn, the plaintiffs sought, in an action against the

owners of the Garoet and all persons claiming to have sustained damage by reason of the collision,

a declaration that their liability in damages for loss or damage to vessels or property should be

limited to 8 per ton for each ton of the tonnage of the Empire Jamaica, on the ground that the

collision occurred without their actual fault or privity (Tufal A. n.d). By their defence the

defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs caused or permitted the Empire Jamaica to be negligently

navigated in an unseaworthy condition, alleging, among other allegations, that the plaintiffs did not
provide a sufficient complement of certificated officers as required by the Merchant Shipping

Ordinance 1899, and that the plaintiffs were privy thereto.

Tufal A. (n.d) stated that the court held on in sight of although the ship had move on sea with the

relation between two parties of the plaintiffs in violation of the requirement to carry two certificated

mates, there was no causal connection between the fact that the plaintiffs party did not possess a

certificate and the fact that his negligent navigation caused the collision. On the other hand, the

facts that plaintiffs had provided the ship with a competent officer, were not guilty of any fault or

privity in relation to the collision and were entitled to the declaration sought.

`
2.2 Causation in Law

Causation in law is what law ask to do so after an accident was occur and the particular person is

liable. The defendants deficiency is consider important in the instant of causing of the claimants

loss, and that no event consigning to a novus actus interveniens has intervened between the two. At

this stage it has to be assessed if the defendant is legally liable after having sorted out which of the

remaining, relevant causes have effectively caused the damage. Particularly the relevance of a cause

is measured by foreseeing the ability, probability, and responsibility.

2.2.1 Case study: Carslogie Steamship Co & Royal Norwegian Government 1952

On this case, the plaintiffs vessel Heimgar, suffered damage in a collision with the defendants

vessel Carslogie for which, it was confess to be true that the Carslogie was solely to be blame.

After temporary repairs to the Heimgar in England, the ship proceeded to a port in the US where

permanent repairs could be carried out. During her voyage, the vessel sustained heavy weather

damage which in need of immediate repair. The vessel remained in dry dock for fifty days. The

plaintiffs claimed damages for loss of charter hire during the ten days attributable to the collision

damage.

The court held that the defendants were only liable for such loss of profit suffered by the defendants

as resulted from the defendants wrongful act based on the interval period that the Heimgar was

detained in dock, she had ceased to be a profit-earning machine because the heavy weather damage

had rendered her unseaworthy (Chappell D., 2016). Therefore, as stated by Chappell D. (2016), the

plaintiffs had sustained no damage by reason of the fact that for ten days the vessel was undergoing

repairs in respect of the collision damage.

3.0 REFERRENCES

AmbulanceChasing. (2016). Cause in Fact. Retrieved from

http://www.ambulancechasing.net/causeinfact.html on 14 December 2016.

Chappell D. (2011). Building Contract Claims, Fifth Edition. Retrieved from

http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Building%20Contract%20Claims%20(5th%20Edition)/Chapter

%202%20%20Time.pdf on 15 December 2016.

Tufal A. (n.d). Negligience Causation and Remoteness Cases. Retrieved from

http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/tort-law/Negligence%20causation%20Cases.pdf on 15 december

2016.