Search

The paper examines the views of domestic civil law theory and case law on inherently dangerous objects and activities, and, in particular, the interpretations of maritime law theory and case law on whether a ship is an inherently dangerous object presupposing the application of a strict liability regime. The central part of the paper is devoted to a critical analysis of the courts’ interpretation of the question of whether a berthed boat is an inherently dangerous object and whether the activity of a marina operator is an inherently dangerous one. Furthermore, the criteria relevant for assessing the legal issues in question are investigated in detail. Finally, determining the relevant criteria leads to guidelines that can be used for theoretical generalisation which can be applied by the courts when deciding in cases involving the legal question of whether a berthed vessel is an inherently dangerous object and the business of a marina operator an inherently dangerous activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An Amendment of the 1996 LLMC Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 was adopted at the ninety-ninth session of the IMO Legal Committee held in London 16 - 19 April 2012, increasing the global limits of liability related to Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) of 1976 LLMC by 51 % on the present limits set out in Article 3 of the 1996 LLMC Protocol. Limits set out in Article 7 of LLMC 1976 have remained unchanged. In accordance with the Article 8(8) of the 1996 LLMC Protocol, these amendments shall enter into force on 8 June 2015. The paper analyses the reasons that have led to the increase of the limits of liability and to the justification of such an increase, taking into account that in only 1.34 % of incidents damages have exceeded current limits of liability established by the 1996 Protocol. It analyses the legal and economic consequences of the increase of the limits of liability and its immediate impact on other international conventions relying on the global limitation of liability, such as the 2001 Bunker Convention and the 2007 Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. It warns, however, that the tendency leading to excessive limits of liability may cause a loss of interest of states to ratify the 1996 Protocol and thus have a negative impact on the unification of law in relation to this matter. Therefore, this paper discusses some of the possible solutions that would provide fair compensation for victims, but would not jeopardise the unification efforts and the purpose of the limitation of liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]