## Facts

- A collision occurred in Kure Harbor, Japan, between the Japanese hydrofoil passenger vessel **Kinsei-Go** (owned by Ishizaki Kisen Co., Ltd.) and the U.S. Army vessel **J–3793** (owned by the United States).
- The incident happened on December 21, 1967, in clear weather, while both vessels were on crossing courses in the harbor.
- J–3793 traveled about 13 knots; its master first sighted Kinsei-Go about 1450 meters away and maintained course and speed until roughly 100 meters, then ordered full astern and sounded three short blasts.
- Kinsei-Go traveled about 31.5 knots; its captain first sighted J–3793 about 800 meters away and maintained course and speed until roughly 50 meters, then stopped engines and ordered hard left rudder.
- Because of the hydrofoil’s turning delay and speed, Kinsei-Go continued forward and its rear starboard hydrofoil contacted J–3793’s port bow.
- Ishizaki sued under the Public Vessels Act; the United States counterclaimed; the trial addressed liability only.
- The district court applied Japanese law, including the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention and Japanese port/navigation regulations, found both vessels at fault, and allocated fault **3/4 to Kinsei-Go** and **1/4 to J–3793**.

## Issues

1. Whether U.S. admiralty’s **Pennsylvania Rule** presumption should apply to a collision in Japanese territorial waters, or whether Japanese collision law (including the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention) governs and excludes presumptions.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in apportioning fault **3/4 to Kinsei-Go** and **1/4 to J–3793** under Japanese law.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the interlocutory liability judgment.
- The court held Japanese substantive collision law controlled the collision occurring in Japanese territorial waters, and the **Pennsylvania Rule** presumption did not apply.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding of mutual fault and its **3/4–1/4** allocation as not clearly erroneous.
- The court sustained findings that Kinsei-Go failed to give way and took avoiding action too late at high speed, and that J–3793 bore lesser fault, including a regulatory violation (failure to display an international call sign) without a sufficient showing that it materially caused the collision.

## Legal Principles

- In a maritime collision in foreign territorial waters, a U.S. admiralty court may apply the foreign sovereign’s substantive collision law, including international conventions incorporated into that law.
- Where governing collision law (such as the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention regime) rejects legal presumptions of fault, a U.S. court should not apply the **Pennsylvania Rule** burden-shifting presumption.
- Under comparative-fault collision regimes, damages are apportioned according to proven fault and causation determined from the record, and apportionment findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit applied Japanese collision law and the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention to a collision in Kure Harbor, declined to apply the Pennsylvania Rule presumption, and affirmed the district court’s finding of shared fault with primary responsibility on the Kinsei-Go (3/4) and lesser responsibility on the J–3793 (1/4).


Ishizaki Kisen Co. v. United States, 510 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1975)