Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strict Liability and Insurance

  • Chapter
Compulsory Insurance and Compensation for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 5))

  • 826 Accesses

F. Concluding remarks

Strict liability is the chosen liability rule in the Bunkers Convention, and insurance is also required. In practice, even where there is no legal duty to insure against liability, the liable person tends to voluntarily procure the insurance policy against such a large-scale liability.

In earlier conventions, the person who can most easily be identified was chosen as the liable person and also the person to take out insurance. The answer to the questions of who shall be liable and who is in a better position to insure against liability under the Bunkers Convention is, however, novel to other civil liability conventions: the shipowner that includes a group of different persons is strictly liable for pollution damage; however, only the registered owner is required to take out insurance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For instance, Abecassis, David W. (ed.), Oil Pollution from Ships (1985), pp. 357–389; Gauci, Gotthard, Oil Pollution at sea: Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage (1997), pp. 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rogers, W.V.H., Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (1998), p. 472.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See ibid., p. 473, any footnotes omitted.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wu, Chao, Pollution from the Carriage of Oil by Sea: Liability and Compensation (1996), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, p. 359: “...there rarely will be sufficient certainty that the spillage or discharge of the oil on the sea will lead to the shore being contaminated-even in these days the wind and tide are not wholly predictable.”

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 15, Abecassis, David W.(ed.), supra, note 5, pp. 358–363. Also see: Southport Corporation v. Esso Petroleum Co.Ltd [1956] A.C.218, H.L.; [1954] 2 Q.B.182, C.A.; [1953] 3 W.L.R.773, Q.B., Fowler v. Lanning [1959] 2 W.L.R. 249, Q.B., Letang v. Couper [1964] 2 All E.R.929.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd Appellants; v. Southport Corporation Respondents. [1956] A.C. 218 (H.L.), at 225.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Page Keeton, W. (gen.ed.), Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th ed., p. 616, 617.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Attorney General v. PYA Quarries Ltd. [1957] 2 Q.B. 169, at.170.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A detailed analysis is provided by Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, pp. 364–368.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rogers, W.V.H., supra, note 6, p. 494.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gauci, Gotthard, supra, note 5, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers, W.V.H., supra, note 6, p. 90: “Thus its (negligence) ingredients are: (1) a legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct of A as falls within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) consequential damage to B...”

    Google Scholar 

  17. [1954] 2 Q.B.182.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Southport Corporation v. Esso Petroleum Co.Ltd [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, p. 383.

    Google Scholar 

  20. [1956]A.C.218, H.L.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Keeton, G.W., ‘The Lessons of the Torrey Canyon: English Law Aspects’, Current Legal Problems 1968, Volume 21, pp. 94–112, at 98.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See IMCO: official records of the international legal conference on marine pollution damage, 1969, hereafter it will be called “O.R. 1969”, at 627.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Werro, Franz/ Palmer, Vernon Valentine (eds.), The Boundary of Strict Liability in European Tort Law (2004), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bergkamp, Lucas, Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability for Environmental Harm in an International Context (2001), p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See IMCO, O.R. 1969, supra, note 27, p. 460.

    Google Scholar 

  26. This was asserted by Professor Herber of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany. See O.R. 1969, supra, note 27, at 627.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See IMCO, O.R. 1969, supra, note 27, at 459.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See ibid., at 458–459.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See O.R. 1969, supra, note 27, at 461.

    Google Scholar 

  30. [1868] Lloyds’ Rep. 3 H.L. 330. Also see Vandall, Frank J., Strict Liability: Legal and Economic Analysis (1989), pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilde, Mark, Civil Liability for Environmental Damage (2002), p. 43, 44.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See “England” part by Rogers, W. V. Horton, in: Koch, B.A./Koziol, H. (eds.), Unification of Tort Law: Strict Liability (2002), p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koch, B.A./ Koziol, H. (eds.), ibid., pp. 395–396: “As a first observation, it is necessary to point out that strict liability in most jurisdictions predominantly seems to be based on singular rules rather than general or at least broader clauses. This is particularly noteworthy for civil law countries. While Austrian courts, for example, (cautiously) apply existing strict liability laws analogously (which reduces problems of tardy), German and Swiss practice so far deny the possibility of extending such statutory rules at all. French law, on the other hand, not only has a clause which (at least in today’s understanding) introduces general liability for ‘deeds of the things within one’s keeping’ (the famous Art.1384 subs. 1 Code Civil), courts furthermore seem to be quite open for an extensive application of other rules (such as the loi Badinter).” Citations omitted.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pfennigstorf, Werner/ Gifford, Donald G., A Comparative Study of Liability Law and Compensation Schemes in Ten Countries and the United States (1991), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See ‘France’, by Galand-Carval, Suzanne in: Koch, B.A./Koziol, H. (eds.), supra, note 38, pp. 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bocken, H., ‘Developments with respect to Compensation for Damage Caused by Pollution’, in: Markesinis, B.S. (ed.), The Gradual Convergence: Foreign Ideas, Foreign Influences, and English Law, on the Eve of the 21st Century (1994), pp. 226–251, at 233.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilde, Mark, supra, note 37, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gauci, Gotthard, supra, note 5, p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gauci, Gotthard, supra, note 5, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Faure, Michael (ed.), Deterrence, Insurability, and Compensation in Environmental Liability: Future Developments in the European Union (2003), p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wertheim WF. Aansprakelijkheid voor schade buiten overeenkomst. Dissertatie. Leiden. 1930. Quoted by Bergkamp, Lucas, supra, note 29, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  43. For more details, see Bergkamp, Lucas, ibid., pp. 86–96. For more discussion regarding the issue that strict liability is preferred, see Section B.II in this chapter.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wolfrum, Ruediger/ Roeben, Volker/ Morrison, Fred L., ‘Preservation of the Marine Environment’, in: Morrison, Fred L./ Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), International, Regional and National Environmental Law (2000), pp. 225–283, at 268.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wolfrum, Rüdiger/ Roeben, Volker/ Morrison, Fred L., ‘Preservation of the Marine Environment’, in: Morrison, Fred L./Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), ibid, at 264.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Landes, W.M. and Posner, R. A., The Economic Structure of Tort Law (1987), p. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Faure, Michael, ‘Economic Analysis’, in: Koch, B.A./Kozio, H. (eds.), supra, note 38, p. 364, 365.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bergkamp, Lucas, supra, note 29, p. 70, FN.21.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See IMCO, O. R. 1969, supra, note 27.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See ibid., at 635.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See ibid., at 458.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See ibid., at 458.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Baughen, Simon, Shipping Law (2004), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See IMCO, O.R., 1969, supra, note 27, at 635.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See ibid., at 537.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See IMCO, O.R. 1969, supra, note 27, at 638.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See ibid., at 640.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See ibid., at 641.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See ibid., at 443.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See ibid., at 690.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See ibid., at 444.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See ibid., at 690.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Morrison, Fred L./ Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), supra, note 55, p. 832: “Once a system has established a standard of liability and an actor within that system fails to meet that standard, exceptions to liability may still be possible...”

    Google Scholar 

  67. These categories are based on the questionnaires in: Koch, B.A./Koziol, H. (eds.), supra, note 38.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rogers, W. V. Horton, ‘England’, in: ibid., pp. 101–126, at 118.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Galand-Carval, Suzanne, ‘France’, in: ibid., pp. 127–145, at 137.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Fedtke, Joerg/ Magnus, Ulrich, ‘Germany’, in: ibid., pp. 147–176, at 163.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ibid., at 164.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Perron, Edgar du/ Boom, Willem H. van, ‘Netherlands’ section, in: ibid., pp. 227–255, at 147.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Bennett, Howard, The law of marine insurance (1996), p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Forster, Malcolm, ‘Civil Liability of Shipowners for Oil Pollution’, J.B.L. (1973), pp. 23–31, at 26.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid., pp. 25–26: “If another could have succeeded in averting the occurrence, then the occurrence is not inevitable and there is no defence.”

    Google Scholar 

  76. Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, p. 205.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Joel v. Morison (1934) 6 C&P 501.

    Google Scholar 

  78. More detailed analysis see Gauci, Gotthard, supra, note 5, pp. 75–76.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Abecassis, David W. (ed.), supra, note 5, p. 206, the author quoted IMO documents: LEG/CONF/C.2/WP.41,OR 601, LEG/CONF/C.2/SR.18,OR 738.

    Google Scholar 

  80. DeLaRue, Collin M./ Anderson, Charles B., Shipping and the Environment (1998), p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wu, Chao, supra, note 8, p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  82. For more details read Bennett, Howard, supra, note 92, in: Chapter 6, pp. 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Templeman, Frederick, Templeman on Marine Insurance: its Principles and Practice (1986), 6th ed., pp. 190–210; see also Ivamy, E R Hardy: General Principles of Insurance Law (1993), 6th ed., pp. 406–420.

    Google Scholar 

  84. [1918] A.C.350.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid., at 369.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Minister of War Transport (The ‘Coxwold’) H.L. (1942) 73 Ll.L.Rep. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid., at 10.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Bennett, Howard, supra, note 92, p. 447.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Gauci, Gotthard, supra, note 5, p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wu, Chao, ‘Liability and Compensation for Bunker Pollution’, 33 J. Mar. L. & Com. 553 (2002), pp. 553–567, at 560.

    Google Scholar 

  91. This definition is from William Tetley, Glossary of Maritime Law Terms (2004), available at: <http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/glossaries/maritime/#letter_j> (visited 1 June 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Hazelwood, Steven J., P& I Clubs: Law and Practice (2000), p. 83.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid., p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid., p. 385. According to Club practice, if the owner’s insurance and charterer’s insurance are covered with the same Club for one and the same vessel and both members become liable, the Club’s own retention will be twice U.S. $5 million, which was the basic retention for the member at the time.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Strict Liability and Insurance. In: Compulsory Insurance and Compensation for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45903-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation