People of Rull ex rel. Ruepong v. M/V Kyowa Violet País/Territorio Micronesia, Estados Fed. Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Sep 21, 2006 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court Juez Yamase, D.K. Número de referencia 14 FSM Intrm. 403 Idioma Inglés Materia Mar, Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Contaminación marina Contaminación marina (por buques) Responsabilidad/indemnización Contaminación oleosa Resumen The defendant vessel struck a reef while navigating a channel into the lagoon. The reef was damaged, and fuel leaked from oil tanks into the lagoon. A cleanup effort was undertaken but all of the oil could not be removed, especially along the mangroves. There was a ban which lasted for 5 months on the use of the lagoon which affected swimming, fishing and shelling. A class action suit was brought by 3 traditional chiefs as representatives of the people of the coastal municipalities. The plaintiffs sought compensation for physical damage to the reef structure and resources asserting that the reef was subject to traditional ownership and use by the residents of the coastal municipalities; and compensation for the effects of the oil spill including the inability to use the resources of the inner lagoon as well as for injuries to the natural resources themselves. The action was brought in rem against the vessel and in personem against the vessel owner, the vessels charterer and the vessels owner. The claim was for compensation was based in negligence, and public and private nuisance. A cause of action is available in maritime negligence for recovery of damages resulting from groundings and oil spills. Causation in maritime tort law is similar to the common law causation principle: “An injury is proximately caused by an act, or failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage, and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.” The vessel breached its duty to safely navigate the channel and that caused the fuel oil spill which damaged the plaintiffs marine resources. Damages were also available in private nuisance because the plaintiffs suffered substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of their property as a result of the defendants improper navigation which could be characterized as negligent or reckless. The claim in public nuisance was also successful, the court finding that the plaintiffs suffered damages different in kind from that suffered by the public at large. Texto completo COU-159863.pdf