Shipping Law - The collision regulation rules Essay

Shipping Law - The collision regulation rules - Essay Example The Merchant Shipping Regulations of 1996 (MSA) provides that the definition of the word "ship" includes hovercraft. More specifically the regulation 2 (1) provides for the application of the Collision Regulations to seaplanes registered in the UK. Moreover, the 1976 Convention does not apply to floating platforms constructed for the purpose of exploring or exploiting the sea-bed, also does not apply to hovercraft.( Chorley & Giles 1999) Section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 defines a ship as every description of vessel used in navigation. Section 58 of this act, clearly states that the act applies to a master or employee of a United Kingdom ship or a foreign ship in United Kingdom waters, who does any act that causes or is likely to cause serious injury to a person, or any act that would prevent serious injury to a person (Mandaraka 2001). However, the section 310 of the Act makes the definition of the ship, applicable to hovercraft. By section 311 of the same act, the Secretary of state has power to declare anything which is designed or adapted for sea uses to be a ship of any purpose of the MSAs. However, this power is not yet exercised (Mandaraka 2001). Furthermore, it can be considered that there is a gap in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1995, considering the definition in the words "used in navigation". There is no clear definition in relation with the navigation and therefore relevant definition given from decided cases. Case: Steedman v Scofield The plaintiff was riding a jet-ski when he was involved in a collision with a speedboat driven from the first defendant. The collision was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff while acting as agent or servant of the water-skier. The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendants for his personal injuries. It was contended that the action was time barred by the time the writ was issued under the provisions of the S8 of the MCA 1911 (Fizpatrick &Adderson, 2005). The issue was whether the jet-ski was a "vessel used for navigation purposes. In the relevant section of the Merchant Act, the "vessel" is defined as any ship or boat or any other description of vessel used in navigation. Also in the same section (742) is defined the ship as every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars. (Mandaraka 2001) Therefore in accordance with the above definition, the jet-ski was a "vessel" because it was used in navigation for the purpose of the MSA, and I t was also a "ship" because it was not propelled by oars. However, the admiralty judge held for this case that: "to come within the definition of "ship" in accordance with the MSA the jet-ski had to be a vessel used in navigation. A vessel was usually a hollow receptacle for carrying people and the word "vessel" was used to refer to craft larger than rowing boats and it included every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a mean of transportation in water: a jet-ski was not a vessel!!! The phrase "used in navigation" is referred to the concept of transportation of persons or commodities to intend destination navigation was not considered synonymous with movement in water, but was defined as a movement from one place to another. Therefore, a jet-ski was capable of movement on water but the purpose was not to go from one place to another. It might be possible to navigate a jet-ski but it was not a