1-Both-to-Blame Collision Clause
a-When two vessels collide, they become liable to each other proportionately for the total damage. The vessel with the lesser damage may impose upon the cargo being carried to contribute to the amount to be paid to the other vessel. The "Both to Blame Collision Clause" in the cargo policy provides that in such event, the cargo policy will cover such contribution. See "Collision Clause" and "Cross Liabilities." [refrences: http://www.amusf.com/Definitions_B.htm , AMUSF organization, Noauthor provided]
b-If the Vessel comes into collision with another ship as a result of the negligence of the other ship and any act, neglect or default of the Master, Mariner, Pilot or the servants of the Carrier in the navigation or in the management of the Vessel, the owners of the cargo carried hereunder will indemnify the Carrier against all loss or liability to the other or non- carrying ship or her Owners in so far as such loss or liability represents loss of, or damage to, or any claim whatsoever of the owners of said cargo, paid or payable by the other or non-carrying ship or her Owners to the owners of said cargo and set-off, recouped or recovered by the other or non-carrying ship or her Owners as part of their claim against the carrying Vessel or Carrier. The foregoing provisions shall also apply where the Owners, operators or those in charge of any ship or ships or objects other than, or in addition to, the colliding ships or objects are at fault in respect of a collision or contact.[References: http://www.bimco.com/Corporate%20Area/Documents/Clauses/Both_to_Blame_Collision_Clause.aspx , The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) organization, no author provided ]
c- A collision between two negligent ships damaged both and the cargo of one. The cargo owners recovered their losses from the non-carrying vessel, and the two ships field cross-libels in admiralty. American admiralty law, although permitting the cargo owner in a both-to-blame collision to sue only the non-carrying ship for its loss, does allow the non-carrier to as the cargo owner's recovery to its own loosed, which are then divided with the carrier. In the cross-libels the United States, owner of the carrier, imp leaded the cargo owners under a 'both-to-blame' clause in their bills of lading, which clause bound the cargo owners to indemnify the United States for that portion of their recovery which the United States was compelled to contribute to the non-carrier. Intervening underwriters of the cargo challenged of the clause. On certiorari to review a judgment denying the United States indemnity, hled, affirmed. Although common carriers by sea have been exempted by statute from direct liability for cargo damage resulting from negligent navigation, still they may not stipulate, without express authorization by Congress, for exemption from indirect liability for cargo damage resulting from a both-to-blame collision.[reference: The Validity of Both-to-Blame Clauses in Ocean Bills of Lading, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 8 (Dec., 1952), pp. 1056-1058 (article consists of 3 pages),Published by: Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.]
Cases on 'Both-to-Blame' Clause.
(Those cases shown were copied from authorized publishing websites.)
The "Anangel Endeavour": United States District Court, Eastern District of Lousiana, Hon. Sarah S. Vance, Docket No. 00-2354, June 18, 2001 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: MARITIME ATTACHMENT: COLLISION: BILL OF LADING: BOTH-TO-BLAME CLAUSE: INDEMNITY: CONTINGENT CLAIMS DMC Rating Category: Confirmed
This case notes is contributed by Alan M. Weigel, an attorney with Healy & Baillie, LLP of New York. Healy & Baillie are the International Contributors to the website for the USA Facts
On August 6, 2000, the m/v "Anangel Endeavour" collided with the m/v "Ivan Susanin" south of the entrance to the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River....