In order to qualify for the second exclusion – based
on the maritime casualty being intentionally caused
by a third party – the owner, as the party seeking to
benefit from this exclusion, will need to show that
any resulting damage was “wholly caused” by such
act. Thus it does not provide a complete defence in
the event that even a small contributory negligence
on the part of the shipowner can be established. This
seems to be a heavy burden of proof for the owner.
The owner is also allowed “to limit liability under any
applicable national or international regime, such as
the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims, 1976 (LLMC, 1976), as amended.”33 However,
local legislation ratifying LLMC, 1976, as amended,
often specifically excludes the right to limit in respect
of wrecks.
In order to qualify for the second exclusion – basedon the maritime casualty being intentionally causedby a third party – the owner, as the party seeking tobenefit from this exclusion, will need to show thatany resulting damage was “wholly caused” by suchact. Thus it does not provide a complete defence inthe event that even a small contributory negligenceon the part of the shipowner can be established. Thisseems to be a heavy burden of proof for the owner.The owner is also allowed “to limit liability under anyapplicable national or international regime, such asthe Convention on Limitation of Liability for MaritimeClaims, 1976 (LLMC, 1976), as amended.”33 However,local legislation ratifying LLMC, 1976, as amended,often specifically excludes the right to limit in respectof wrecks.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..