"Pearl", Owners of the Ship v "Jahre Venture", Owners of the Ship

In a collision between anchored vessels, each vessel may be at fault where it drags anchor and fails to appreciate that fact or take timely action. A vessel whose machinery defect prevents recovery of its anchor bears a prima facie presumption of negligence. That presumption is rebutted only by proving that the defect was latent or that reasonable care was taken to send the vessel to sea in an efficient state. Causative potency and blameworthiness govern apportionment. Serious and causative faults on both sides may justify equal apportionment.

The owners of the tanker “Pearl” claimed damages from the owners of the vessel “Jahre Venture” following a collision in the Fujairah anchorage on 3 March 2000. Both vessels were anchored in severe weather. “Jahre Venture” dragged her anchor and later collided with “Pearl”, which was also found to have dragged.

The central issues were whether either vessel had dragged, whether “Jahre Venture” was prevented from manoeuvring by a bunker barge, whether a steam-line defect preventing “Pearl” from recovering her anchor was excusable, and how responsibility should be apportioned.

1. Findings of fact. “Pearl” had dragged her anchor and those on board failed to appreciate that fact. “Jahre Venture” had also dragged. Her engines were ready for use from about 06.55, and the bunker barge “Markiza” did not prevent her from recovering her anchor or keeping clear.
2. Fault of “Jahre Venture”. Once her engines were ready, “Jahre Venture” had no good reason between about 06.55 and 07.30 not to use them to keep clear. She should also have appreciated earlier that she was dragging and taken action before the barge became relevant. That failure was causative. The master was not at fault for ordering half astern rather than full astern immediately after the anchor came free at about C-5. The collision was then highly likely, and the decision was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
3. Fault of “Pearl”. “Pearl” should have appreciated by about 07.00 that she was dragging. Her failure to act earlier was causative. The steam-line defect preventing recovery of the anchor raised a prima facie case, or presumption, of negligence. The owners did not rebut it by proving either that the defect was latent or that due diligence had been exercised to send the vessel to sea in an efficient state. The defect was therefore causative and attributable to “Pearl”.
4. The criticism that “Pearl” should have let out cable and gone astern instead of attempting to recover her anchor was rejected. There was no appreciable ahead movement before collision, the attempted manoeuvre was understandable, and the suggested alternative would not in any event have been causative.
5. Both vessels had serious, causative faults. Having regard to causative potency and blameworthiness, neither vessel warranted a greater share of responsibility. Liability was apportioned 50/50.