(b) When two vessels are approaching correctly but a vessel turns the key
toward the other vessel at surprise; the turned vessel 100%
(2) In a collision in a Traffic Separation Scheme; Same as the above
EE. Ordinary Seamanship case;
(1) Anchored vessel not sounding warning signal 5%: power-driven vessel 95%
(2) Vessel moored to shore 0%
The special committee established for producing the guidelines took into consideration the extent of the culpability of each vessel as to whether it acted or failed to
act according to its duty imposed in the COLREG. It also referred to case materials in
relation to the apportionment of liability rendered by the civil courts. The KMST
started to apply the guidelines to collision cases as of January 1, 2007.
5.2.1 Cases Decided by the KMST with Fault Ratio
According to the KMST reports, the collision cases with particular figures of fault
ratio were decided as follows: No cases in 2002: 18 cases out of 54 in 2004: 18 cases
out of 58 cases in 2006; and 29 cases out of 50 in 2008. It shows that the KMST’s
decisions on fault ratio are increasing.
5.2.2 Fault Ratio in the KMST and Civil Court
It can be safely said that most of the decisions rendered by the KMST with fault ratio
are widely accepted by the parties involved in the collision as well as by the civil
courts in their judgments. That said, it must be noted that in several cases the civil
court did not accept the fault ratio decided by the KMST and came up with its own
judgment.
In the M/V Tae young Sun collision case, the Central KMST (2000.5.10. Docket
No. 2000-3) held that the M/V Taeyoung Sun as a general power-driven vessel
should have kept out of the way of the fishing vessel Daeo which was engaged in
fishing. Thus, M/V Taeyoung Sun should bear an apportionment of 80% of liability.
The Gwangju District Court (2002.11.15., Docket No. 2000gahap5758) accepted the
decision of the Central KMST and apportioned the 80% fault ratio to M/V Taeyoung
Sun. In the M/V Hanpo collision case, the Central KMST on 2002.1.8. held that the
M/V Hanpo had the status of a stand-on vessel; thus 40% fault ratio was imposed on
it. This decision was adopted without change by the Pusan District Court.
In the recent case of the collision between M/V Morning Express and M/V Pos
Bravery, the Central KMST apportioned the fault ratio at 50%: 50%. However, the
Seoul Central District Court (2008.10.24., Docket No. 200 gahap 15313) decided
differently from that of the KMST by imposing 65% fault on the M/V Pos Bravery
and 35% on the M/V Morning Express. The different decisions came from different
applications of the law. While the Central KMST applied the ordinary seamanship
Korean Collision Avoidance Rules and Apportionment of Liability
387
toward the other vessel at surprise; the turned vessel 100%
(2) In a collision in a Traffic Separation Scheme; Same as the above
EE. Ordinary Seamanship case;
(1) Anchored vessel not sounding warning signal 5%: power-driven vessel 95%
(2) Vessel moored to shore 0%
The special committee established for producing the guidelines took into consideration the extent of the culpability of each vessel as to whether it acted or failed to
act according to its duty imposed in the COLREG. It also referred to case materials in
relation to the apportionment of liability rendered by the civil courts. The KMST
started to apply the guidelines to collision cases as of January 1, 2007.
5.2.1 Cases Decided by the KMST with Fault Ratio
According to the KMST reports, the collision cases with particular figures of fault
ratio were decided as follows: No cases in 2002: 18 cases out of 54 in 2004: 18 cases
out of 58 cases in 2006; and 29 cases out of 50 in 2008. It shows that the KMST’s
decisions on fault ratio are increasing.
5.2.2 Fault Ratio in the KMST and Civil Court
It can be safely said that most of the decisions rendered by the KMST with fault ratio
are widely accepted by the parties involved in the collision as well as by the civil
courts in their judgments. That said, it must be noted that in several cases the civil
court did not accept the fault ratio decided by the KMST and came up with its own
judgment.
In the M/V Tae young Sun collision case, the Central KMST (2000.5.10. Docket
No. 2000-3) held that the M/V Taeyoung Sun as a general power-driven vessel
should have kept out of the way of the fishing vessel Daeo which was engaged in
fishing. Thus, M/V Taeyoung Sun should bear an apportionment of 80% of liability.
The Gwangju District Court (2002.11.15., Docket No. 2000gahap5758) accepted the
decision of the Central KMST and apportioned the 80% fault ratio to M/V Taeyoung
Sun. In the M/V Hanpo collision case, the Central KMST on 2002.1.8. held that the
M/V Hanpo had the status of a stand-on vessel; thus 40% fault ratio was imposed on
it. This decision was adopted without change by the Pusan District Court.
In the recent case of the collision between M/V Morning Express and M/V Pos
Bravery, the Central KMST apportioned the fault ratio at 50%: 50%. However, the
Seoul Central District Court (2008.10.24., Docket No. 200 gahap 15313) decided
differently from that of the KMST by imposing 65% fault on the M/V Pos Bravery
and 35% on the M/V Morning Express. The different decisions came from different
applications of the law. While the Central KMST applied the ordinary seamanship
Korean Collision Avoidance Rules and Apportionment of Liability
387