## Facts

- The M/V **Hellenic Carrier**, owned by **Hellenic Lines, Ltd.**, collided with the **LASH Atlantico**, owned by **Prudential Lines**, in **international waters off the coast of North Carolina**.
- Visibility was restricted, and the vessels closed on one another before colliding.
- Hellenic Lines brought an admiralty action in federal district court arising from the collision.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the **LASH Atlantico 80% responsible**, relying in large part on findings that:
  - the Atlantico’s **radar was inoperable**, and
  - the Atlantico **failed to reduce speed** as it neared the other vessel.
- The district court found the **Hellenic Carrier 20% responsible** because it also **failed to reduce speed** as the encounter developed.
- Prudential appealed, arguing that the Hellenic Carrier made **turns to port** during the approach that violated collision-prevention regulations.
- Prudential also argued that the district court wrongly treated the regulation discouraging a port alteration in this type of encounter as **advisory rather than mandatory**, and therefore did not give the alleged violations proper weight in allocating fault.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the collision-prevention regulation addressing **turns to port** during the vessels’ approach, including its view that the directive should be read as advisory rather than an absolute command in the circumstances presented.
2. Whether the district court’s **comparative fault allocation** (80% Atlantico / 20% Hellenic Carrier) should be disturbed on appeal based on Prudential’s port-turn argument and the overall record of each vessel’s conduct.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit **affirmed** the district court’s judgment.
- The court left intact the finding that the **LASH Atlantico was 80% at fault** because operating without working radar and failing to slow in restricted visibility were major contributing faults.
- The court also left intact the finding that the **Hellenic Carrier was 20% at fault** for its own failure to reduce speed.
- The court rejected Prudential’s claim that the alleged port turns required a different allocation of responsibility, concluding the district court did not commit reversible error in its treatment of the regulation or the evidence bearing on fault.

## Legal Principles

- In admiralty collision cases, **allocation of fault** and related causation findings are generally treated as **fact-bound determinations** that receive substantial deference on appeal.
- Maritime collision liability is governed by **comparative fault**; responsibility is assigned in proportion to the seriousness and causal role of each vessel’s failures.
- Proceeding in restricted visibility without effective equipment (such as **operable radar**) and failing to **reduce speed** as the risk of collision increases are serious faults that can justify a dominant share of liability.
- A claimed violation of a collision-prevention regulation does not automatically change apportionment; the court must assess whether the violation is established on the record and how it relates to causation and relative fault.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s 80/20 apportionment for the collision between the Hellenic Carrier and the LASH Atlantico, agreeing that the Atlantico’s inoperable radar and failure to reduce speed warranted most of the responsibility and that Prudential’s port-turn argument did not justify reallocating fault.


In re Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 730 F.2d 159, 1984 AMC 2713 (1984)