3.4 Is the person or legal entity claiming the application of the rule named as an entity covered by the regulation?
It has been pointed out in section 2.2 above that the main criterion for the application of the LLMC 1976 on limitation of maritime claims(1) Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 with protocol of 1996.is whether owners, charterers, managers, and operators of seagoing vessels, or salvors, wish to limit their liability, see Art. 1(1) and 1(2). Neither the navigational aids nor the process or company structure in which the operation of the vessel or decision-making processes are carried out seem particularly relevant, provided that ‘a seagoing vessel’ is involved in the situation at hand and the entity claiming is e.g. an operator of the vessel. Art. 1(4) of the convention extends the right to limitation to “[…] any person for whose act, neglect or default the shipowner or salvor is responsible […]”. Considering scenario 1, remotely controlled, land-based navigation is still done in the service of the seagoing vessel, and therefore from the outset is within the owner’s sphere of liability.(2) See e.g., the Danish and Norwegian Maritime Code sec. 151.If, on the other hand, the owner has outsourced the land-based crewing of the ship to an independent contractor, such entity might fall short of being a “[…] person for whose act […] the shipowner […] is responsible”. In that case, arguably, the independent contractor might also fall short of being a manager or operator under Art. 1(2), as the overall economic and managerial responsibility that one would assume rest on such entities might not be present. Likewise, under scenario 2, the wording of Art. 1(2) would exclude e.g. a producer causing damage when erroneously coding the AI inbuilt in the vessel from the scope of application of the convention. Conversely, liability arising from the owner’s inhouse IT-services/coding forms part of the general running and maintenance of the vessel, for which the owner is responsible – and thus within his right to limit under the LLMC 1976.