{"id":3248,"date":"2013-05-24T14:30:44","date_gmt":"2013-05-24T13:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3248"},"modified":"2016-06-09T14:32:01","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T13:32:01","slug":"award-1203","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/05\/24\/award-1203\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1203"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1203 &#8211; Alleged collision of a long cable towed by a seismic survey vessel with a containership &#8211; Referral to CAMP by virtue of a letter of undertaking \u2013 Involvement of the container ship (yes ) \u2013 Liability (unproved). <\/strong>The principle which rules liability related to collision compels the claimant to prove, firstly, the cause of the accident, and, secondly, that the fault is attributable to the defendant vessel. Although challenged by the Master and the ship owner, the Tribunal considered that there was a body of corresponding evidence which established the containership involvement in the collision. However, her liability could not be decided as it was not proven that the vessel had to have a preliminary knowledge of a cable under tow of 6,300 metres and that a proper look out would have allowed the vessel\u2019s crew to identify without doubt the operation being carried out by the survey vessel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1203 &#8211; Alleged collision of a long cable towed by a seismic survey vessel with a containership &#8211; Referral to CAMP by virtue of a letter of undertaking \u2013 Involvement of the container ship (yes ) \u2013 Liability (unproved). The principle which rules liability related to collision compels the claimant to prove, firstly, the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3248"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3249,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3248\/revisions\/3249"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}