In a ship collision, liability for damages is not determined merely by identifying which vessel touched the other. The violation of navigation rules, fault, the causal link with the damage and the type of damage are examined together. The Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) treats sole fault and joint fault differently, and it also regulates damage to property differently from death and injury. The position of the shipowner, the operator, the master and the insurer each requires a separate legal assessment.
This article focuses on property and ship damage and on bodily injury arising from the collision of commercial vessels. Where a foreign flag, a foreign operator or a foreign insurer is involved, the applicable law must be determined first. The explanations below show the Turkish collision regime. They do not assume that the same rules apply directly in every international incident.
Which events count as a ship collision?
TTK 1286 is based on the collision of vessels. In addition, a vessel's manoeuvre, a failure to manoeuvre, or a failure to comply with navigation rules that causes damage to another vessel or to persons and property on board, without any contact, may also fall within the scope of the provision. Accordingly, the assessment is not limited to incidents in which the hulls touched each other.
For example, where a claim alleges that a vessel was damaged while taking evasive action because another vessel passed close by, the absence of physical contact alone does not defeat the claim. However, the other vessel's movement, the necessity of the manoeuvre, the link between the manoeuvre and the damage and the applicable navigation rules must be proven. Merely being in the same area or being a larger vessel is not sufficient to establish liability.
However, when a vessel strikes a quay, a crane installation or a shore structure, the collision provisions between two vessels do not automatically apply. This distinction affects which rules govern fault and liability. Towage relationships and damage caused by a tug must also be assessed separately, under the contract, the actual towing arrangement and the relevant special provisions. Where a collision causes fuel or cargo leakage and administrative sanctions follow, the article on appealing a marine pollution fine may be consulted.
How is fault determined and which evidence is used?
Fault cannot be determined by working backwards from the outcome of an accident on the basis of a simple assumption. Under TTK Article 1294, no presumption of fault applies in collision liability. It therefore cannot be said that the vessel which struck the other is always at fault, that a vessel at anchor is faultless in every circumstance, or that the vessel which took the last evasive action bears all the liability.
The 1972 COLREGs provide the basic framework on proper lookout, safe speed, assessment of the risk of collision and actions to avoid collision. In the concrete case, visibility, the traffic separation scheme, narrow channel conditions, the manoeuvring capabilities of the vessels and the means by which they detected each other are important. The obligations of the give-way vessel and of the vessel that must keep her course and speed are examined together. It cannot be concluded that the second vessel never needs to take precautions in any circumstances.
A link between the breach of a rule and the damage must also be established. The existence of a documentary deficiency or a technical irregularity does not justify loading the entire damage on that vessel unless it is shown to have affected the accident. On the other hand, a maintenance deficiency, a communication problem or a watch arrangement that prevented timely detection of the danger or the appropriate manoeuvre may be decisive in the assessment of fault.
| Question to examine | Main evidence | Point to compare |
|---|---|---|
| When did the vessels first detect each other? | Radar, VDR, bridge testimony | Recorded times, visibility and lookout conditions |
| How did the risk develop? | ECDIS, AIS, course and speed data | Accuracy of the data, delays and recording gaps |
| What measures were taken? | Rudder and engine records, VHF | Time between the instruction and its implementation |
| How did the damage occur? | Damage geometry, photographs and measurements | Direction of contact, earlier damage and the link to the incident |
| How large is the loss? | Repair survey, invoices and commercial records | Mandatory expense, improvement and duplicate items |
AIS imagery alone may not be enough for a complete collision analysis. VDR and ECDIS data should be read together with radar tracks, physical damage and witness statements. A timeline prepared without correcting clock deviations between different devices may show the order of manoeuvres incorrectly. The technical report should explain which data is definite and which is hypothetical.
When objecting to an initial report, it is not enough to say only that "the fault ratio is high". The data used, the rule applied, the chronology of events and the manoeuvre that was overlooked should be stated. An expert's engineering assessment and the court's decision on legal liability are separate matters. A technical report that can be audited allows the parties to object effectively.
What is the difference between sole fault, joint fault and an event without fault?
Under TTK Article 1287, where an unforeseeable event, force majeure or a cause that cannot be identified occurs, each vessel bears its own loss. This provision does not justify saying that "no one was at fault" before the event has been clarified. The fact that the cause is unknown and the failure to preserve evidence in time are different problems. The burden of proof and the existing evidence are assessed separately.
Under TTK Article 1288, where the collision results from the fault of one of the vessels, the shipowner of that vessel bears the loss. The claimant must nevertheless establish the loss and its connection with the collision. It cannot be assumed in advance that every repair claimed resulted from the accident, or that every commercial loss will be compensated.
Where more than one vessel is at fault, TTK Article 1289 applies to damage to property. The liability of the shipowners is determined in proportion to the weight of their faults. Where the weight of fault cannot be determined or is equal, equal division is considered. In this area, automatic joint and several liability towards the injured party is not accepted. For cargo on board, the special defences arising from the carriage relationship and the recourse provisions are examined separately.
As an illustrative example, assume a case governed by Turkish law in which only damage to the hull is in dispute, and vessel A's fault is 70% while vessel B's fault is 30%. For a proven loss of 1,000,000 currency units suffered by B, the part that may be claimed from A's shipowner is assessed on the basis of 700,000 currency units, provided the other conditions are also met. This example is not the outcome of any real file. Counterclaims, set-off, interest, limitation of liability and insurance calculations are addressed separately.
For death and bodily injury, TTK Article 1290 is different. The shipowners of jointly at-fault vessels may be jointly and severally liable towards the injured party. Their final allocation between themselves is made according to the weight of their faults. Presenting the proportionate liability for damage to property and the external relationship in bodily injury cases as a single rule may lead to a wrongly structured litigation strategy.
Who is liable as shipowner, operator and master, and on what basis?
TTK Article 1061 defines the shipowner as the owner who uses the vessel on the water for the purpose of gain. A person who uses a vessel that does not belong to them, in their own name and for the purpose of gain, may also be treated as the shipowner in relations with third parties. Accordingly, the relationship between the registered owner and the actual operator should be examined, especially in structures such as a bareboat charter. A charterer or a technical manager is not a shipowner merely because of the title given in the contract.
TTK Article 1062 regulates the shipowner's liability for faults committed by crew members in the performance of their duties. The fact that the shipowner did not personally steer the vessel is not in itself a defence. However, special provisions on the carrier and areas such as the limitation of liability for maritime claims are reserved. Contracts that show the operating relationship, crew management and on whose behalf the vessel was operated should be examined together.
The master's duty of care and his liability for his own fault are regulated in TTK Articles 1088 and 1089. An instruction from the shipowner does not automatically remove the master's professional obligations. Criminal liability arising from an incident is assessed separately, on the basis of the person's conduct, fault and the elements of the relevant offence. It is not possible to move from the private law liability of a company to the automatic criminal liability of a manager or a master.
The presence of a pilot on board does not by itself release the shipowner from liability. TTK Article 1291 distinguishes between a compulsory adviser, an optional pilot and a compulsory pilotage service. Before the legal nature of the service provided in the incident and the regulation that applies are determined, one cannot say "there was a pilot, so liability lies with him". The actual division of tasks between the pilot, the master and the bridge team must be examined through the evidence.
Which losses can be claimed and is a limitation applied?
Items such as repair costs of the vessel, survey fees, reasonable mitigation costs and loss of use may be claimed depending on the concrete case. For each item, however, a link to the collision and an amount must be shown. Pre-existing wear, planned maintenance and works that leave the vessel in a better condition than before must be separated. Appearing on an invoice does not mean that the entire expense can be shifted to the other party.
In a claim for loss of earnings, the period during which the vessel could not operate, the reasonable duration of the repair, cancelled work, alternative use and the expenses saved are important. Presenting the gross freight amount as a loss without any deduction may not be correct. For the same period, where the vessel would already have been unable to operate for another reason, causation and the calculation are reassessed.
The regime limiting liability for maritime claims, set out in TTK Article 1328 and the following articles, may also affect collision claims where its conditions are met. Who may benefit from the limitation, whether the claim falls within the regime, the exceptions and the establishment of a fund are assessed separately. The insurance limit and the legal liability limit are not the same thing. Stating a fixed maximum compensation figure without examining the tonnage of the vessel and any applicable contractual changes would be misleading.
In claims for injury and death, the status of the injured person, whether the event occurred within an employment or carriage relationship, and the applicable law are important. Medical expenses, loss of working capacity, loss of support and non-pecuniary damage are not proven by the same evidence. Health records, income and the support relationship, and the development of the incident are examined separately. Similar claims in yacht and boat accidents are discussed in the article on liability in yacht and boat accidents.
Pre-action evidence preservation, time limits and the international dimension
TTK Article 1292 introduces a special regulation on pre-action preservation of evidence in collision cases. The order of competence set out in the law and the notification to the vessels' masters or their representatives must be observed. No percentage of fault can be shown in this preservation report. Its purpose is to record traces, records and technical conditions that may disappear. The fault examination in the main action should not be confused with this stage.
The rule in TTK Article 1293 that the claim does not depend on a protest or any other form requirement does not mean that other procedural provisions are ignored, such as mandatory mediation as a condition for bringing suit. The route of application is determined by the commercial nature and the subject of the claim. A request for evidence preservation, or a precautionary arrest of a vessel, does not by itself secure all the time limits of the principal claim.
TTK Article 1297 provides a two-year limitation period for claims for damages arising from a collision, running from the day of the collision. The one-year period in the same article, for the recourse claims between shipowners specified in the law, runs from the date of payment. It cannot be said that each claim brought by an insurer through subrogation gains a new one-year period upon payment. The legal nature of the claim and the position of the real right holder must be examined.
In a file with a foreign element, the tort law applicable under Article 34 of the Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), the competent court, the relevant international conventions and any contractual arbitration arrangements are assessed separately. The flag state alone does not resolve every problem. The time limits for a court action or arbitration abroad, and for guarantee and evidence procedures in Türkiye, should be monitored on a common timetable.
Conclusion
A sound claim in a collision dispute rests on evaluating navigation data together with the rules of legal liability. The proportionate liability for damage to property, the joint and several liability for bodily injury, the identification of the correct shipowner and the special time limits directly affect the outcome of the file. Beyond the fault report, the basis of the loss calculation and the opposing party's defences should also be examined. Insurance and security work should run in parallel with this assessment.
Related articles: First steps after a ship accident in Türkiye; Damage claims under hull and machinery insurance; Claims under P&I insurance and applications in Türkiye.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do the collision provisions apply if the vessels did not touch?
Yes. Under the conditions in TTK Article 1286, a vessel's manoeuvre or breach of navigation rules may cause damage to another vessel, or to persons and property on it, without any contact. The causal link must be proven.
Is a vessel at anchor always faultless?
No. Proper anchoring, signals and lights, lookout, local conditions and the measures that could have been taken are examined. Under TTK Article 1294, no presumption of fault applies.
If both vessels are at fault, can the entire loss be claimed from one of them?
It depends on the type of loss. For damage to property, proportionate liability under TTK Article 1289 applies. For death and injury, joint and several liability under TTK Article 1290, and the rules on internal allocation, are taken into account.
Does a pilot's error always release the shipowner?
No. The types of pilotage under TTK Article 1291 must be distinguished. The presence of a pilot on board does not by itself show which exception applies.
Does the preservation report determine the court's percentage of fault?
No. The pre-action report under TTK Article 1292 does not show a percentage of fault. The technical findings are preserved. The assessment of fault and liability in the main dispute is made separately.
Does the time limit restart when the insurer pays?
As a rule, subrogation does not give the original claim a new time limit. The specific recourse claims under TTK Article 1297 and the insurer's subrogation claim should not be treated as the same.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 6102 on Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Articles 1061–1062, 1088–1089, 1286–1297, 1328 et seq. and 1472. Ministry of Trade text.
2 — Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), Articles 34 and 40. Ministry of Justice text.
3 — International Maritime Organization, Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs), in particular the rules on lookout, safe speed, risk of collision and avoidance.
4 — Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), Articles 400–403 on the preservation of evidence. Ministry of Justice text.