인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
This article deals with the question of whether Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) may limit its liability to compensate for the loss caused by the oil spill in the West Sea of Korea which followed the collision of SHI’s crane barge and an oil tanker. Since the crane barge and the tugs are not a ‘ship’ within the meaning of the Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Act (OPDCA), the OPDCA’s limitation of liability clause is not applicable to SHI. But Article 746 of Commercial Code provides a limitation of liability for shipowners in general.
A ‘personal act’ of the shipowner would include omission as well. In the case of a corporate person, its representative’s act would no doubt constitute an act of the corporate person. Under certain circumstance, however, its employee’s act may also be regarded as a ‘personal act’ of the corporate shipowner.
Whether the shipowner had ‘actual knowledge’ that the loss would probably occur is a matter of the subjective state of mind which can only be inferred from objectively available evidence. If there was an obvious risk that the shipowner’s act or omission would cause loss, then it is likely that the court may find, as a matter of inference, that the shipowner had actual knowledge. While the question of recklessness and actual knowledge are conceptually distinct, these two would stand or fall together in practice.
The limitation of shipowner’s liability applies only to claims for compensation for a ‘loss’. If a third party who has no duty to take measures to neutralize the oil spill had neutralized the oil spill on behalf of the shipowner who has the duty, the third party’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for neutralization is not a claim for a ‘loss’. With regard to such a claim for reimbursement, the shipowner may not rely on the limitation of liability.
A ‘personal act’ of the shipowner would include omission as well. In the case of a corporate person, its representative’s act would no doubt constitute an act of the corporate person. Under certain circumstance, however, its employee’s act may also be regarded as a ‘personal act’ of the corporate shipowner.
Whether the shipowner had ‘actual knowledge’ that the loss would probably occur is a matter of the subjective state of mind which can only be inferred from objectively available evidence. If there was an obvious risk that the shipowner’s act or omission would cause loss, then it is likely that the court may find, as a matter of inference, that the shipowner had actual knowledge. While the question of recklessness and actual knowledge are conceptually distinct, these two would stand or fall together in practice.
The limitation of shipowner’s liability applies only to claims for compensation for a ‘loss’. If a third party who has no duty to take measures to neutralize the oil spill had neutralized the oil spill on behalf of the shipowner who has the duty, the third party’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for neutralization is not a claim for a ‘loss’. With regard to such a claim for reimbursement, the shipowner may not rely on the limitation of liability.
#선박소유자의 책임제한
#선박소유자의 의무
#유류오염사고
#해양오염 방지법
#손해발생의 개연성
#무모한 행위
#감항능력
#회사 자신의 행위
#예인선
#부선
#유조선
#방제비용
#사무관리
#Limitation of Shipowner’s Liability
#Shipowner’s Duty
#Oil Spill
#Marine Pollution Prevention Act
#Actual Knowledge
#Recklessness
#Seaworthiness
#Personal Act
#Alter Ego
#Tug
#Barge
#Tanker
#Neutralization Expenses
#Negotiorum Gestio
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001505802
