中国宁波海事法院MOL Comfort号事故原因归咎于船舶设计和建造

中国宁波海事法院：MOL Comfort号事故原因归咎于船舶设计和建造

China court blames MOL Comfort loss on design (TradeWinds)

Owner absolved of 2013 disaster, based on Japanese government investigation

August 11th, 2016

Adam Corbett London

Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) has been absolved of liability over the loss of the MOL Comfort (built 2008) with China’s Ningbo Maritime Court blaming the ship’s design and construction.

The 8,110-teu vessel broke in two in the Indian Ocean in June 2013, prompting cargo claims in various jurisdictions around the globe amounting to more than $500m.

Six carriers were involved in placing cargo on the ill-fated ship under slot charters, which has prompted the multinational legal action.

Three separate claims against MOL were brought to the Ningbo court by Chinese cargo interests, including two sets of uninsured cargo owners and leading Chinese insurance giant PICC.

MOL’s defence was based principally on a Japanese government technical report into the loss conducted with ClassNK.

The defence was handled by Holman Fenwick &Willan, headed by partner Paul Apostolis, Chinese law firm Wang Jing and Tokyo-based Yoshida & Partners.

The report is highly technical but the Ningbo court determined that it demonstrated the ship had been built without an adequate safety margin.

The court said the report revealed that the design of the MOL Comfort had not applied sufficient strength to the bottom structure in its typical loaded condition.

This was because designers had failed to give enough consideration to secondary longitudinal loads and transverse stresses caused by lateral loads on the bottom structure.

Other similar design containerships classified by Lloyd’s Register and DNV had, however, provided adequate strength to their hulls.

Operation not at fault

But the critical poin t of the Ningbo court’s reading of the Japanese accident investigation is that it removes the operation of the vessel by MOL as a cause of the accident.

A ship of the same design operated by APL Lines also suffered similar buckling problems, while sisterships of the MOL Comfort also had buckling and deformation in the hull bottom.

The two uninsured cargo interests are to appeal against the Ningbo ruling, but PICC has declined to do so.

It is the first time a court has ruled that design deficiencies are the cause of the loss. Eyes will now be on whether the main litigation on the claims, taking place in Tokyo, follows the same line. It is expected to come to an interim judgment next spring.

MOL is being sued by cargo interests in the Tokyo court for the loss but in turn it is suing the MOL Comfort’s shipbuilder, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, based on product liability law.