People of Satawal ex rel. Ramoloilug v. Mina Maru No. 3 Pays/Territoire Micronésie, États Féd. Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jul 20, 2001 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Supreme Court Juge Yinug, M. Numéro de référence 10 FSM Intrm. 337 Langue Anglais Sujet Alimentation et nutrition, Questions juridiques, Mer, Environnement gén. Mot clé Pollution de la mer Toxicité/empoisonnement Pollution de la mer (immersion de déchets) Sécurité alimentaire Pollution marine (imputable aux navires) Responsabilité/indemnisation Résumé This case arises out of a reef grounding of the vessel Mina Maru No. 3 on the reef surrounding the island of West Fayu. West Fayu is a small island which lies somewhere between 46 to 49 miles to the northwest of Satawal, one of the Outer Islands of Yap. The grounding occurred on April 7, 1998 The uninhabited island of West Fayu is owned by the people of Satawal. Historically, the island and surrounding waters have served as a storehouse for the people of Satawal. The trees and plants from the island itself have been used as building materials for houses and outrigger canoes. Birds and coconut crabs from the island were used as food, while the waters surrounding the reef provided fish, lobsters, clams, and turtles. Organized outings to West Fayu for fishing typically occurred about twenty times a year. The fish caught on these expeditions would be distributed community wide when the boats returned to Satawal. Since the grounding event, fishing trips to West Fayu have been less productive. There has also been an instance where those who ate the fish taken from the waters surrounding West Fayu became ill. The reported symptoms were consistent with ciguatera poisoning, which results when the levels of a certain type of marine organism known as a dinoflagulate. The increased presence of this organism can occur where corals have been damaged due to a grounding. The dinoflagulate produces a toxin, which is toxic to humans when present in fish in certain levels. The plaintiffs were granted summary judgement and there was a hearing to determine damages. The court considered various means of monetary valuation including commodity values, tourism value and replacement value. The court also considered the amount of compensation awarded in a previous grounding. Expert testimony was relied upon to determine damages. Cost of clean up was also awarded. Texte intégral COU-159864.pdf