Zones of Collision

Prepared by:
Genevieve SANCHEZ BERMUDO
 Rule of Road, powered vessels

Giving Way Arc

Any ship in this arc steering a
vessel and must keep clear
collision is an overtaking
which presents a risk of
proceeding at a speed

course which presents a risk of

steering a course and
Any ship in this arc
Overtaking Arc

collision has the right of way.

of ship A

Ship A gives way for her.

Ship A Right of Way Arc

Any ship in this arc steering
a course which presents a risk
of collision must give way.
Ship A has the right of way
 Rule of Road, sailing vessels

A on starboard tack has right of way over Windward boat B gives way to leeward
B on port tack. board A
 Close-quarters situations:
1. Overtaking Maneuver

Overtaking

Overtaken
Close-quarters situations:
2. Crossing situation
Close-quarters situations:
3. Head-on situation
Overtaking

Give-way
WHAT ARE ZONES IN COLLISION
Three divisions in time of collision:
1. First Division - This refers to all time up to the moment
when risk of collision may be said to have begun. Within
this zone, no rule is applicable because none is necessary.
Each vessel is free to direct its course as it deems best
without reference to the movements of the other vessel.
2. Second Division - This refers to the time between
moment when risk of collision begins and moment it
becomes a practical certainty.
3. Third Division - This covers the time of actual contact.
This is when the collision is certain and time of impact.
Doctrine of Error in Extremis
This refers to the sudden movement made by a faultless vessel
during the 3rd zone of collision with another vessel
which is at fault during the 2nd zone. Even if such sudden
movement is wrong, no responsibility will fall
on said faultless vessel.
Urrutia and Co. v. Baco River
Plantation If a vessel having a right of way suddenly changes its
course during the 3rd zone (time between the moment when
collision has become a practical certainty and the moment of actual
contact), in an effort to avoid an imminent collision due to the fault
of another vessel, such act may be said to be done in extremis, and
even if wrong, cannot create responsibility on the part of said vessel
with the right of way.
Thus, it has been held that fault on the part of the sailing vessel at
the moment preceding a collision, that is, during the 3rd division of
time, does not absolve the steamship which has suffered herself and
a sailing vessel to get into such dangerous proximity as to cause
inevitable harm and confusion, and a collision results as a
consequence.
The steamer having a far greater fault in allowing such proximity to
be brought about is chargeable with all the damages resulting from
the collision; and the act of the vessel sailing having been done in
extremis, even if wrong, is not responsible for the result.
WHAT ARE THE LIABILITY RULES?
Negligence-based
Although the liability with respect to collision is not governed by quasidelict, liability in collusion is still negligence based. Thus, the
courts are still called upon to determine the negligence of the persons involved in order to impose liability.
Nature of liability
The person who caused the injury is both civilly and criminally liable.
Determination of negligence
In the determination of negligence, the same test of a reasonable man in the position of an expert that applies in quasi- delict should also
be applied, although with due consideration to the expertise of the persons involved including the carrier itself, the
captain, officers and crew of the vessels.
Doctrines of contributory negligence and last clear chance not applicable
The doctrines of contributory negligence and last clear chance are not applicable. Thus, if both vessels negligently operated, it does not
matter if the other has the last clear chance of avoiding the injury because under Article 827, each must suffer its own damage if both of
them are negligent. Consequently, both shall be solidarily liable for losses and damages.
Important: Proof that the plaintiff was negligent will bar recovery from the defendant in collision cases even if the Plaintiff’s negligence
can be classified as merely contributory
Defense of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees not applicable
Even if the cause of action against the common carrier is based on quasi-delict, the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of
employees is unavailing in case of a maritime tort resulting in collision. It is not a civil tort governed by the Civil Code but a maritime one
governed by Arts. 826-839 of the Code of Commerce.
Doctrine of limited liability rule applicable
The Doctrine of Limited Liability applies in case of collisions. The law limits liability of the shipowner and ship agent to the value of the vessel
with all its appurtenances and freightage earned during the voyage.
Specific rules under the Code of Commerce
1. One vessel at fault - If a vessel should collide with another, through or the fault, negligence, or lack of skill of the captain, sailing mate,
or any other member of the complement, the owner of the vessel at fault shall indemnify the losses and damages suffered, after an expert
appraisal. (Art. 826)

2. Both vessels at fault - If the collision is both imputable to both vessels, each one shall suffer its own damages, and both shall be
solidarily responsible for the losses and damages occasioned to their cargoes. The losses rest where they falls. With respect to the
cargoes, the ship-owner and ship agents of the vessels involved in the collision are liable to the shippers. The liability is joint and several’
there will be no apportionment of liability and each ship-owner or ship agent is liable for the whole damage or injury. (Art. 827)
3. Party at fault - cannot be determined Each party shall also bear his own damage in cases in which it cannot be determined which of
the two vessels has caused the collision. They are solidary responsible for the losses and damages occasioned to their cargoes. (Art. 828)
Important: This is otherwise known as the doctrine of inscrutable fault – where it cannot be determined which between the two vessels
was at fault, both shall bear their respective damage, but both should be solidarily liable for damage to the cargo of both vessels.
Rule 18, International Rules of the Road
When two power-driven vessels are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter her course to
starboard, so that each may pass on the port side of the other.
 Mecenas v. Court of Appeals (1989)

Facts: M/T Tacloban (barge-type oil tanker) and the M/V Don Juan (passenger vessel) collided. When the collision occurred, the sea was
calm, the weather fair and visibility good. As a result of this collision, the M/V "Don Juan" sank and hundreds of its passengers perished.
M/V Don Juan claimed that it should not be liable as it complied with Rule 18 of the International Rules of the Road, while M/T Tacloban
City did not. It appears that when the two vessels were only three-tenths (0.3) of a mile apart, M/T Tacloban turned to port side (in
violation of Rule 18, while the M/V Don Juan veered hard to starboard.
Ruling: The “Route observance” of the International Rules of the Road will not relieve a vessel from responsibility if the collision
could have been avoided by proper care and skill on her part or even by a departure from the rules.
Rule 18 like all other International Rules of the Road, are not to be obeyed and construed without regard to all the circumstances
surrounding a particular encounter between two vessels.
In ordinary circumstances, a vessel discharges her duty to another by a faithful and literal observance of the Rules of Navigation, and she
cannot be held at fault for so doing even though a different course would have prevented the collision. This rule, however, is not to be
applied where it is apparent, as in the instant case, that her captain was guilty of negligence or of a want of seamanship in not perceiving
the necessity for, or in so acting as to create such necessity for, a departure from the rule and acting accordingly.
Smith Bell v. Go Thong (1991)
Go Thong was held responsible for collision in this case for violation of Rule 18 of the International Rules of the Road. This is because of the
following:
1. It turned to portside (left), instead of turning to starboard (right)
2. There was no proper look-out
3. The second mate was the one in command of the vessel even if there was a captain on board