Ocean Pearl V. Triton Case

However, a Chinese Jurisdiction principle that seems progressive and is similar to the US is when Maritime Courts allow parties to reject jurisdiction where for appropriate reasoning in tort disputes. In Ocean Pearl v. Triton Case (2015) Ocean Pearl alleged that HNA & Triton, the ship-owner and ship- manager respectively, failed to fulfill their obligations and should be held responsible for the resulting property damage. HNA disputed the Shanghai Maritime Court’ jurisdiction because HNA was domiciled near the Tianjin Maritime Court. The Court declared “Pursuant to Chinese laws, this dispute is under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court in the place where the tort occurs, or where the defendant is domiciled or in other places which have a

According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 169 of the Maritime Code of the People 's Republic of China, “If the colliding ships are all at fault, each ship shall be liable in proportion to the extent of its fault . . . The ships at fault shall be liable for the damage to the ship, the goods and other property onboard pursuant to the proportions prescribed in the preceding paragraph.” Furthermore, China & U.S. are consistent in having rules that establish appropriate conduct for ships. In the US “The concept of fault utilizes a standard of correct conduct, and any deviation from the required standard will likely result in a finding of fault. The standard of correct conduct in navigation of vessels from the largest merchant ships down to the smallest pleasure boats is supplied primarily by the federal statutory Rules of Navigation “(The Pennsylvania, US. Supreme Ct). In the Qingdao Maritime Court Case, Triumph v. Sea Success, 2011 –CMCLR3_2, a similar apportionment of liability test is used. Here, a Hong Kong vessel and Libyan vessel collided during restricted visibility conditions and there was a dispute over who should assume greater responsibility. First, the court determined that the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the PRC gave the court jurisdiction because of the foreign-related elements and a

3. Here, even though the Defendant (Sun Shell Shipping Co.) had not been granted entry permission by PRC maritime Bureau they were only found 80% liable. However, similar to the United State’s concept to mitigate damages, the Court here held that not all repair costs on the Defendant’s vehicle were directly caused by the collision. For example, the Defendant traveled to a farther away shipyard and the Plaintiff did not have to pay for these travel costs and the Plaintiff also did not have to pay for the repainting or de-rusting of the vessel. “According to Article 3 (2) of the Provisions of the Supreme People 's Court on the Compensation for Property Damage in the Case of a Ship Collision and Touch, the ship shall be repaired nearby unless the claimant can prove that the repair in other places could further reduce the losses and save the cost, or for other reasonable reasons. Second, according to Article 3 (2) of the Provisions of the Supreme People 's Court on the Compensation for Property Damage in the Case of a Ship Collision and Touch, the compensation shall be limited only to the loss and cost occurred in repairing the damaged part due to the collision if the repairing of parts is accompanied by the claimant’s repairs to ensure the