In The United
Kingdom A Waverunner Is Not A Ship!
In another example of how British Courts and Canadian
Courts appear to be parting ways in maritime law, the English Court
of Appeal in R. v. Goodwin  E.W.C.A. Crim 3184, held
that a Yamaha Waverunner did not meet the definition of "ship"
under the Merchant Shipping Act (U.K.). The case was recently
appealed to the House of Lords and leave to appeal was refused.
The English Court of Appeal held that the waverunner
was not a vessel "used in navigation". This has certain
implications for owners of such vessels involved in accidents. The
operator and owner, for example, may not be able to limit liability.
In Canada, under the Marine Liability Act,
an owner and operator are entitled to limit liability for injuries
and property damage to $1,000,000 for vessels under 300 tons. The
Act defines in section 25 ship "any vessel or craft designed,
used or capable of being used solely or partly for navigation, without
regard to method or lack of propulsion." The wording in section
25 has been modified from the previous wording in the Canada
Shipping Act which simply defined ship as a vessel "used
in navigation". The words "solely or partly for"
navigation are slightly different.
The English Court of Appeal's ruling centers on the
theme of the legislation. "The primary concern of this legislation
is shipping carried on as a business." The Court goes on to
find that operating a waverunner for pleasure does not meet this
intent and further that "navigation" implies a purpose
of going from one place to another. It therefore held that using
a waverunner for thrills was not navigation.
Canadian courts have come to the opposite result.
In Chamberland v. Fleming in 1984 (under the old wording
used in the Canada Shipping Act "used in navigation")
held that a jet ski operator could limit liability under the Canada
Shipping Act. The Alberta Court of Queens Bench implicitly recognized
that the jet ski was ship. Similarly the Supreme Court of Canada
in Whitbread and Walley, in 1988 held that the provisions
of the Canada Shipping Act relating to limitation of liability
applied to pleasure craft. The argument that the intent of the Act,
which was derived from the U.K. Merchant Shipping Act, was
commercial application was rejected. In 1996, in Cox v. Brown,
the British Columbia Supreme Court held that an operator of a vessel
used in water skiing could limit liability under the Act.
The vessel was "used in navigation" despite the fact there
was no purpose of going from one place to another.
Certainly in Canada owners and operators of personal
watercraft appear to be in a better position to limit their liability
for personal injuries, death and property damage than their counterparts
in the United Kingdom.
© Rui Fernandes, 2006
This newsletter is published to keep our clients and friends informed
of new and important legal developments. It is intended for information
purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not
act or fail to act on anything based on any of the material contained
herein without first consulting with a lawyer. The reading, sending
or receiving of information from or via the newsletter does not
create a lawyer-client relationship. Unless otherwise noted, all
content on this newsletter (the "Content") including images,
illustrations, designs, icons, photographs, and written and other
materials are copyrights, trade-marks and/or other intellectual
properties owned, controlled or licensed by Fernandes Hearn LLP.
The Content may not be otherwise used, reproduced, broadcast, published,or
retransmitted without the prior written permission of Fernandes