The Plaintiff, YANG Moumou 1, a minor in the company of her mother, YANG Moumou 2, almost drowned in the swimming pool of M.V. “Sapphire Princess”, operated by the Defendant, Carnival PLC. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant failed to provide the necessary facilities required to ensure the safety of its passengers, and thus was solely responsible for the damages caused by the accident. Also, the Plaintiff contended that the applicable law in this case where the accident occurred at the high seas, was the law of the flag state which was English law. The Defendant on the other hand, in addition to disputing the applicability of flag state law, contended that it adhered to international best practices in respect of safety facilities, and that the mother of the Plaintiff failed to discharge her duties as the statutory guardian of the Plaintiff. The Court considered the evidence submitted to it, most especially the fact that the cruise ship was involved in a similar accident a year ago. After addressing the various issues raised by the parties, the Court held that (i) the law of the People’s Republic of China was the applicable law, and not the law of the flag state, because of the quality and quantity of the connecting factors (ii) the Plaintiff and Defendant were jointly responsible for the accident, and thus the damages were allocated on a percentage basis, with the Defendant taking 80% and the Plaintiff taking 20% liability.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

YANG Moumou 1 v. CARNIVAL PLC

  • Martin Davies,
  • Jiang Lin

摘要

The Plaintiff, YANG Moumou 1, a minor in the company of her mother, YANG Moumou 2, almost drowned in the swimming pool of M.V. “Sapphire Princess”, operated by the Defendant, Carnival PLC. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant failed to provide the necessary facilities required to ensure the safety of its passengers, and thus was solely responsible for the damages caused by the accident. Also, the Plaintiff contended that the applicable law in this case where the accident occurred at the high seas, was the law of the flag state which was English law. The Defendant on the other hand, in addition to disputing the applicability of flag state law, contended that it adhered to international best practices in respect of safety facilities, and that the mother of the Plaintiff failed to discharge her duties as the statutory guardian of the Plaintiff. The Court considered the evidence submitted to it, most especially the fact that the cruise ship was involved in a similar accident a year ago. After addressing the various issues raised by the parties, the Court held that (i) the law of the People’s Republic of China was the applicable law, and not the law of the flag state, because of the quality and quantity of the connecting factors (ii) the Plaintiff and Defendant were jointly responsible for the accident, and thus the damages were allocated on a percentage basis, with the Defendant taking 80% and the Plaintiff taking 20% liability.