## Facts

- A self-propelled drilling ship, NEDDRILL 2, was anchored about 11–12 miles off Aruba from December 1989 to January 1990.
- A crude-oil tanker, RICH DUKE, was transiting northbound in a nearby sea lane when it struck the anchored NEDDRILL 2 (an allision).
- NEDDRILL 2’s anchor position was reported to Aruban authorities and published in a Dutch-language notice to mariners; RICH DUKE’s crew read Korean and English.
- There was evidence NEDDRILL 2 did not report its position to charting/notice sources regularly used by RICH DUKE.
- The parties disputed whether NEDDRILL 2 displayed the COLREGS-required lights/shapes for a vessel restricted in its ability to maneuver while at anchor.
- The parties also disputed whether NEDDRILL 2 maintained a proper lookout under COLREGS Rule 5 and whether it could have warned RICH DUKE (e.g., by radio).
- RICH DUKE detected NEDDRILL 2 at roughly seven miles by radar and visually but made course-adjustment errors that led to the allision.
- The district court granted summary judgment assigning 100% liability to RICH DUKE; RICH DUKE appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under admiralty comparative negligence, an anchored vessel can be allocated fault for an allision when it allegedly violated statutory navigation rules.
2. Whether alleged violations by NEDDRILL 2 (lights/shapes, lookout, and position reporting) created triable issues of causation precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held an anchored vessel is not automatically free from fault; it may be comparatively negligent if statutory violations could have contributed to the allision.
- Genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding NEDDRILL 2’s compliance with collision-prevention rules and whether any noncompliance could have been causative.
- Because fault allocation depended on disputed evidence, liability could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty applies comparative negligence in collision/allision cases; fault is allocated by relative causal contribution rather than categorical presumptions.
- A vessel’s violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions triggers a demanding burden to show the violation could not have contributed to the casualty (Pennsylvania rule concept).
- Compliance with COLREGS lighting/shape requirements and the duty to maintain a proper lookout are central collision-prevention obligations; disputed compliance commonly presents fact questions.
- Summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist about statutory navigation compliance and causation bearing on comparative fault.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that an allision between a moving vessel and an anchored vessel may involve shared fault when the anchored vessel’s alleged statutory navigation violations could have contributed to the incident, requiring factfinding rather than summary judgment.


Cliffs-Neddrill Turnkey Int’l-Oranjestad v. M/T Rich Duke, 947 F.2d 83 (3d Cir. 1991)