[Case Brief]: The Greek ship Altair, weighing 40,523 tons, is owned by Starbucks Shipping Company (hereinafter referred to as Starbucks Company), the defendent in this case. On 13th, November, Altair, loaded with 56,720.539 tons of soybeans, sailed from New Orleans, the United States, to Zhoushan, China. Then on 17th, December, the ship concerned unloaded 12,525 tons of soybeans at berth No.1 in Laotangshan, Zhoushan, and then it headed for Nanjing. During the process of pilotage, the ship applied for emergency anchorage because the steering engine failed to work. Then its starboard prow collided with the No. 4 cleat of a 300,000 tons terminal. The accident investigation report issued by Ningbo Marine Affairs Bureau decided that Altair shall be responsible for this accident. In February, 2012, Ningbo Daxie Petrochina Fuel Oil Terminal Co., Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as Petrochina Terminal Ltd), the plaintiff in this case, instituted legal proceedings against Starbucks Company and claimed that Starbucks Company take full responsibility in this case, and pay RMB 100 million Yuan for the loss caused by the collision, such as its repair charge, carrying costs and operating earnings, and that Petrochina Company should have maritime lien of Altair. While Starbucks Company argued that Petrochina hadn’t proved its identification as the legal owner of the terminal involved, or provided evidence to prove the repair charge and loss of operating earnings, and Starbucks Company should be entitled to limitation of liability of maritime claims in this case. After the accident, Petrochina Terminal Ltd entrusted others to inspect and evaluate the extent of damage of the terminal involved and started the repair work. And Starbucks also entrusted others to assess the damage extent of the terminal. In response to the application of Petrochina Terminal Ltd, the Court audited the average profits of the terminal involved between September and November 2009 and the maintenance costs of Petrochina Company from the date of the accident to the date when the terminal resumed operation. In the duration of hearings, the two parties involved achieved agreement on claims of the direct loss of the terminal. And after mediation by the Court, the parties achieved final agreement on claims of all the losses of the terminal. The case was then closed through court mediation.

    [Typical Significance]: Though the speed of the giant ship in this case was slow, the damage caused by the collision was still severe. This is the characteristic of this particular case. As the collision fact of this case and the accident liability were clear, the focus of dispute rested on losses caused by the accident and the compensation that the aggrieved party could receive. While the repair charge of the terminal was already fixed, the indirect loss was influenced by repair time. If the losses caused by collision between ships and terminals exceed the offending ship’s amount of liability of maritime claims, the excessive part won’t be compensated.  This case is of typical significance both in terms of minimizing indirect losses or the processing of the case as follows: 1.Try to minimize indirect loss. According to provisions of maritime law, Starbucks Company can be entitled to limitations of liability of losses caused by the accident. According to the aggregate tonnage of Altair, its limit of liability is 6,408,875 SDRs, approximately RMB 60 million Yuan, which is also the maximum amount of compensation that Petrochina Terminal Ltd can receive. Under limitations of liability of maritime claims, minimizing indirect losses caused by accidents means minimizing actual losses of the aggrieved party that won’t be compensated, therefore, both parties involved and judges are supposed to make joint efforts towards this goal. The measures taken in this case include assessing extent of damage and starting repair work immediately, laying solid foundation for repair work of the terminal; choosing the repair plan of building another cleat, reducing time for clearance of the damaged one; the original construction unit doing the repair work at the original bid price, saving time for choosing repair unit; adding clauses for awards and punishments into the contract signed with the repair unit, reducing repair time, all of which helped keep the total losses within the limits of liability. All the measures mentioned above helped Petrochina Terminal Ltd receive enough compensation to cover its losses, and Starbucks Company was satisfied with the result.  Handling the case by mediation in a phased manner enabled the aggrieved party to be compensated timely and alleviated its pressure of capital turnover. Since repair work was not finished at the first hearing, the judge of this case requested both parties, especially Starbucks Company to audit the repair project settlement and raise objections, if there was any, as soon as the repair work was finished. Since the judge suggested that, the two parties negotiate over and achieve agreement on the less controversial direct losses, which could alleviate disputes between the two parties and let the plaintiff get its compensation earlier to alleviate its pressure of capital turnover. After negotiation, the two parties achieved agreement on claims of repair charge of the terminal on 3rd, December, 2010, and then the final agreement on claims of all the losses.