## Facts

- Three vessels traveled in thick fog and low visibility in a Traffic Separation Scheme in the English Channel: the Kariba (westbound), the Tricolor (westbound, overtaking), and the Clary (northbound, crossing).
- The Kariba proceeded about 16 knots; the Tricolor about 17.9 knots while gradually overtaking from the Kariba’s starboard aft; the Clary about 13 knots on a course that created a developing close-quarters/collision risk with the Kariba.
- The Kariba’s bridge team observed the Clary had not altered course; the Kariba ordered a 10-degree starboard alteration and then a hard starboard turn to avoid the Clary.
- The Clary belatedly altered to starboard to pass behind the Kariba; during the Kariba’s evasive hard starboard maneuver, the Kariba struck the Tricolor’s port side, causing the Tricolor to capsize and sink with cargo loss but no loss of life.
- None of the vessels sounded fog signals, communicated with one another, or reduced speed before the collision.
- After the collision, the Clary’s bridge watch altered course around the wreck, failed to respond to distress communications, and altered or erased navigational records.
- The Kariba’s owner filed in federal court seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability; cargo interests asserted claims, and the Kariba impleaded the Clary and Tricolor.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the Kariba solely at fault; the Kariba owner and cargo claimants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred by assigning 100% fault to the Kariba rather than apportioning comparative fault among the Kariba, Tricolor, and Clary.
2. Whether each vessel violated collision-prevention rules (COLREGs) and, if so, whether those violations were causative under the burden-shifting presumption for statutory violations in collision cases.
3. What findings were required on remand to allocate liability based on relative culpability and causal contribution.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment that held the Kariba exclusively at fault and remanded.
- The court held that all three vessels violated the COLREGs and that each committed at least one violation that was causative of the collision.
- The court directed the district court to determine whether the Tricolor’s speed was a proximate cause, assess each vessel’s relative culpability and causal contribution, and allocate fault comparatively among the three vessels.

## Legal Principles

- In maritime collision cases, liability is allocated under comparative fault based on each party’s relative culpability and the extent to which its faults caused the loss.
- Violations of collision-prevention rules intended to prevent the type of accident at issue trigger a presumption that shifts the burden to the violating vessel to prove the violation could not have contributed to the collision.
- In restricted visibility, vessels must proceed at a safe speed and act with heightened caution; failures in lookout, speed management, fog-signal/communication practices, and avoidance maneuvers may each constitute causative navigational fault depending on the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit rejected a sole-fault allocation to the Kariba, concluding that the Kariba, Tricolor, and Clary each committed causative COLREGs violations in restricted visibility, and it remanded for findings on proximate cause and a comparative apportionment of liability.


Otal Invs. Ltd. v. M/V Clary, 494 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2007)