Overview of the Way to Determine Ship Collision Fault in China

Inship collisionlaw, fault can be divided into two categories: actual fault and presumed fault. The former directly proves that one party has committed specific faults in driving or managing the ship, while the latter infers the existence of assumed facts from established basic facts, until such presumption is rebutted or denied by contrary evidence. The essence of the Pennsylvania Rule mentioned in this section is the "presumed fault" rule, which is more rigorously expressed as "legal presumption of fault." Its meaning is: once a ship violates the navigation rules, this behavior is presumed to be the cause of the collision. The violating ship must prove that the violation was not the cause of the collision and that it could not have caused the collision in order to be relieved of liability. To illustrate this point and compare it with other fault determination situations, let's take an example:

Ship A is anchored in an appropriate position in an anchorage area, displaying the corresponding ship lights in accordance with relevant rules and without any anchoring behavior that violates the rules. At this time, Ship B collided with Ship A during its voyage.

(1) Actual Fault Situation

If Ship A can provide evidence to prove that Ship B was speeding or not following the corresponding navigation routes during its operation, then Ship B is considered to have actual fault and should be compensated and handled according to the rules established by China's Maritime Law or relevant international conventions. The situation of actual fault is relatively simple. Since Ship A's evidence is sufficient and Ship B's fault is very clear, it is natural to determine that Ship B bears the corresponding collision compensation responsibility, which is not subject to much dispute.

(2) Legal Presumption of Fault/Pennsylvania Rule Situation

If Ship A cannot prove whether Ship B has actual fault, but the existing evidence shows that Ship B did violate relevant legal requirements by speeding, although it is unclear whether the collision was caused by the speeding (i.e., causality cannot be confirmed), then according to this rule, Ship B should bear the corresponding responsibility regardless of whether Ship A can prove that Ship B's speeding caused the accident. Unless Ship B can prove that speeding was not the cause of the accident and could not have caused the collision under the circumstances at that time, it should bear the responsibility.

(3) Presumption of fault based on facts

If A can provide evidence to prove that their anchoring position and corresponding operation fully complied with relevant laws, regulations, and international rules, and B does not present any evidence to refute it, then the court will presume that B is at fault. B should prove that the accident was caused by force majeure or an unexpected incident; otherwise, they must bear corresponding liability.

The "Pennsylvania Rule" may involve legal conflicts, and the results may vary greatly in different legal environments. Therefore, this rule is not adopted by China's Maritime Law and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels. In contrast, the presumption of fault based on facts is commonly adopted by various countries, and China's Maritime Law and judicial practice also adopt this approach. However, it should be noted that if the collision occurs in a country that adopts the Pennsylvania Rule or is referred to a country that adopts it based on jurisdiction, then this rule will also apply. Practitioners should be aware of this and avoid related issues.