KMST shows a tendency to apply the ordinary seamanship principle in several cases
such as collision involving an anchored vessel and a vessel in which a pilot is
embarking or disembarking.
4
4.2 Vessel Waiting at Sea with Engine Ready
When a vessel is stopped at sea due to engine trouble, it falls within the scope of an
NUC vessel and therefore enjoys priority.
5 However, when a vessel is stopped with
engines ready, there is a dispute in Korean law and practice as to whether (i) the
vessel is within the scope of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver or (ii) it is
simply a general power-driven vessel. The KMST supports the former view and thus
the vessel has priority over a general power-driven vessel (Central KMST 2002.6.4.
Decision No. 2002-11).
6 However, this decision is under heavy criticism by several
academics and practitioners. In accordance with the COLREG, the vessel stopped at
sea with engine ready is regarded as a general power-driven vessel and thus it can be
in the status of a give-way vessel if it has the approaching vessel on her starboard
side.
7
4.3 Vessel at Anchor
A vessel at anchor also has a duty to avoid collision. According to the Central
KMST, the vessel’s duty is as follows: (i) to anchor at the designated anchorage
(ii) to exhibit navigation lights and display the requisite shapes (iii) to post lookouts
(iv) to give warning signals (v) to use its engines; and (vi) to adjust the length of the
anchor cables (Central KMST Decision 1998.3.6. Docket No. 98-8).
8 In Korean law,
4 M/V Ocean Trader Collision case (Central KMST Docket No. 2001-19), Korean Marine Safety
Tribunal Decision Report (2002), p. 210. See Kim (2018), p. 57.
5 Allen (2005), p. 64; Kim (2018), p. 101.
6 Healy and Sweeny (1997), p. 189; Famsworth and Young (1996), p. 55; Kim (2018), p. 232.
7 In the City of Camden case, M/V City of Camden was navigating and M/V Triton was lying at sea.
The 3rd Circuit Court of the US held that M/V Triton was in the status of the give-way vessel and
thus it should keep out of the way of M/V City of Camden. The Court imposed 100% liability upon
M/V City of Camden. 1930 AMC, 1822; However, in the Devotion II case, the fishing vessel
Mayflower was lying at sea and had the approaching Devotion II on her starboard side. The
Admiralty court rendered that the crossing rule should not be applied to the collision case involved
in the vessel lying at sea and thus the Mayflower was not in the status of the give-way vessel. See
The Devotion II [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509.
8 In the M/V Chingdao Express case, the Central KMST found that the Chingdao Express carried
out all the above precautions and thus was totally exonerated from liability.
382
I. H. Kim
such as collision involving an anchored vessel and a vessel in which a pilot is
embarking or disembarking.
4
4.2 Vessel Waiting at Sea with Engine Ready
When a vessel is stopped at sea due to engine trouble, it falls within the scope of an
NUC vessel and therefore enjoys priority.
5 However, when a vessel is stopped with
engines ready, there is a dispute in Korean law and practice as to whether (i) the
vessel is within the scope of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver or (ii) it is
simply a general power-driven vessel. The KMST supports the former view and thus
the vessel has priority over a general power-driven vessel (Central KMST 2002.6.4.
Decision No. 2002-11).
6 However, this decision is under heavy criticism by several
academics and practitioners. In accordance with the COLREG, the vessel stopped at
sea with engine ready is regarded as a general power-driven vessel and thus it can be
in the status of a give-way vessel if it has the approaching vessel on her starboard
side.
7
4.3 Vessel at Anchor
A vessel at anchor also has a duty to avoid collision. According to the Central
KMST, the vessel’s duty is as follows: (i) to anchor at the designated anchorage
(ii) to exhibit navigation lights and display the requisite shapes (iii) to post lookouts
(iv) to give warning signals (v) to use its engines; and (vi) to adjust the length of the
anchor cables (Central KMST Decision 1998.3.6. Docket No. 98-8).
8 In Korean law,
4 M/V Ocean Trader Collision case (Central KMST Docket No. 2001-19), Korean Marine Safety
Tribunal Decision Report (2002), p. 210. See Kim (2018), p. 57.
5 Allen (2005), p. 64; Kim (2018), p. 101.
6 Healy and Sweeny (1997), p. 189; Famsworth and Young (1996), p. 55; Kim (2018), p. 232.
7 In the City of Camden case, M/V City of Camden was navigating and M/V Triton was lying at sea.
The 3rd Circuit Court of the US held that M/V Triton was in the status of the give-way vessel and
thus it should keep out of the way of M/V City of Camden. The Court imposed 100% liability upon
M/V City of Camden. 1930 AMC, 1822; However, in the Devotion II case, the fishing vessel
Mayflower was lying at sea and had the approaching Devotion II on her starboard side. The
Admiralty court rendered that the crossing rule should not be applied to the collision case involved
in the vessel lying at sea and thus the Mayflower was not in the status of the give-way vessel. See
The Devotion II [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509.
8 In the M/V Chingdao Express case, the Central KMST found that the Chingdao Express carried
out all the above precautions and thus was totally exonerated from liability.
382
I. H. Kim