Maritime activity is a fundamental pillar contributing to economic, social, and environmental development. It plays a vital role in both global and national trade. Ships are the primary instrument of maritime navigation and are exposed to numerous risks during a voyage. Although ships now employ steam power, nuclear energy, and modern technologies, risk remains ever-present, and maritime casualties have become among the most prominent challenges facing maritime transport. (1) This is largely attributable to the fact that ships now sail at very high speeds, their hulls are constructed of steel, and their size has increased significantly—rendering collision incidents particularly alarming. (2)
This has driven international efforts to prevent collision incidents, improve maritime transport safety, and enhance navigational security. Accordingly, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea were adopted in 1972, (3) and the Kingdom acceded thereto and affirmed their applicability under Article (259) of the Commercial Maritime Law. (4)
Meaning of Maritime Collision
Legal doctrine has differed as to the legal meaning of maritime collision. One view adopts a narrow meaning of collision, while another adheres to an expanded meaning, as follows:
1- The narrow meaning of collision:
Proponents of this approach consider collision to be “a physical impact occurring at sea between two ships, or between a ship and a vessel.” This view is grounded in the linguistic meaning, which presupposes direct contact or physical interlocking between two floating structures, provided that at least one of them qualifies as a “ship” in the legal sense. This approach further requires that the collision occur at sea, on the basis that maritime rules are confined to incidents occurring at sea and do not extend to those occurring in rivers. (5)
2- The expanded meaning of collision:
The majority of legal scholarship considers maritime collision to be a physical impact occurring between two or more seagoing ships, or between a seagoing ship and an inland navigation vessel, whether the collision occurs at sea or in waters that are marine or inland. Under this approach, emphasis is placed on the nature of the structures or ships involved, rather than on the location where the collision occurs, such that it is immaterial whether the collision takes place in territorial sea waters or in international waters. (6)
The Brussels Convention of 1910 (7) defined collision in Article (1) as “collision occurring between two seagoing ships or between a seagoing ship and an inland navigation vessel, regardless of the waters in which the collision occurs,” thereby adopting the expanded meaning of maritime collision.
By contrast, the Saudi Commercial Maritime Law defined collision in Article (1) as: “A collision occurring between two or more ships, or between a ship and any marine installation,” which indicates that the legislator has adopted the narrow meaning of maritime collision.
Conditions for Maritime Collision
1- Identification of the parties to the collision:
A collision must occur between two or more seagoing ships. For this purpose, “ship” must be understood in its proper legal sense, namely as defined by the legislator in Article (1) of the Commercial Maritime Law, which provides that a ship is: “Any floating structure customarily prepared for maritime navigation, even if not intended for profit, and the accessories necessary for its operation shall be deemed part thereof.”
Accordingly, an incident involving the wreck of another ship, a dredger, or a bridge does not constitute a collision. (8)
The rules governing collision apply also where the collision occurs between a ship and any marine installation. Although the Law does not define “marine installation,” Article (1) defines an offshore platform as “a marine installation used for the extraction of oil, gas, or other resources and is deemed to be a ship.” Accordingly, a collision between a ship and an offshore platform constitutes a collision.
2- Occurrence of physical impact:
To constitute a maritime collision, there must be an actual impact or physical contact—i.e., an actual striking or interlocking—between ships, or between a ship and vessels of maritime navigation or objects, resulting in damage arising from such impact. It is not required that the contact occur between the main hull structures, nor that the collision be direct. If a ship strikes a vessel and that vessel then collides with another ship or floating structure, the injured party in the latter may have recourse against the first ship from which the collision originated. This is referred to as an indirect collision.
Where the foregoing concerns actual impact, it differs from constructive collision, which arises where a ship sustains damage as a result of the passage of another ship in a manner that generates unusually violent waves. (9)
3- Absence of a contractual or legal arrangement governing the relationship between the parties to the collision:
Liability arising from collision is tortious liability. Accordingly, its rules do not apply where a contractual relationship exists between the parties, as in the case of a towage contract. However, the rules of collision liability apply where the collision occurs due to the fault of the pilot, even if pilotage is compulsory, without prejudice to the general rules of liability. (10)
Types of Maritime Collision and the Liability Arising from Each Type
Liability in collision cases is based on fault that must be proven. The burden of proof lies on the claimant asserting the fault. The determination of liability varies depending on the nature of the fault that led to the incident.
The legislator distinguished among types of collision in terms of: the establishment of fault by one vessel, force majeure, and contributory fault. These are addressed as follows:
A- Collision caused by the fault of one vessel:
Article (254/1) of the Commercial Maritime Law provides: “If a collision occurs due to the fault of one of the ships, the ship causing the damage shall be obliged to compensate for the damage resulting from such collision…..”
The term “ship” in this provision refers to the shipowner or the ship operator. The shipowner or operator is civilly liable for the acts of the master, seafarers, the pilot, and any other person in the service of the ship, where such acts occur in the course of, or by reason of, the performance of their functions. (11)
The shipowner and the operator are also liable for damage arising from an act or omission of the shipowner or his representative committed with the intent to cause damage, or for negligence accompanied by awareness that damage may occur. (12) This includes negligent maintenance, staffing the ship with unqualified crew members, or failing to equip the ship with necessary communication devices, lights, and signals. (13)
Fault may also arise from one of the masters or crew members by way of negligence, without force majeure. Fault may further arise in management, planning, and organizing the voyage, or in determining positions, headings, and speed, or in communications between ships or between ships and monitoring and control centers. Fault in any of these areas may lead to collision, causing material damage and, at times, bodily injuries and loss of life. (14) In all cases, fault must be proven.
B- Collision due to force majeure, or where its causes are uncertain:
Where it is established that the collision resulted from force majeure—i.e., external causes that could not be anticipated or prevented, such as a sudden cyclone or abnormal whirlpools—or where the collision occurred for reasons that could not be identified or remained doubtful, each ship shall bear its own damage, even if the ships involved in the collision, or one of them, was at anchor at the time the collision occurred. (15)
C- Collision due to contributory fault:
A collision is deemed to arise from contributory fault where two or more ships contributed to causing it. This may occur, for example, where it is established that a master navigated at excessive speed despite fog or circumstances requiring speed reduction under the international rules of navigation at sea, and it is also established that the master of the other ship failed to use lights or signals warning other ships. (16)
In such case, liability is apportioned according to the degree of fault attributable to each ship. Where it is not possible to ascertain the proportion of fault of each ship, liability shall be divided equally between them. (17) This applies as between the colliding ships.
As regards third parties who sustain damage as a result of the collision—such as damage to another ship, or its cargo, or luggage, or other property of the seafarers, or any other person on board—the third party may have recourse against the operator of each ship within the limits of that operator’s liability as assessed by the extent to which its fault contributed to the collision, and there is no joint and several liability in this case. (18)
Joint and several liability arises only where the fault results in the death of a person or bodily injury. In such case, the operator against whom recourse is sought shall be liable for the full damage and shall have recourse against the operators of the other ships to recover any amount paid in excess of its share of liability. (19)
The Duty to Render Assistance
Where a collision occurs, the master is obliged to promptly render assistance to the other ships, their crews, and other persons on board, to the extent that doing so does not expose his ship, its crew, or persons on board to danger. The master is liable for negligence in rendering assistance. The operator is not liable for such negligence unless it is proven that the master’s failure to render assistance was carried out pursuant to the operator’s express instructions. (20)
What is the difference between the narrow and expanded meanings of maritime collision?
The primary difference between the narrow and expanded meanings of maritime collision lies in the geographic location where the incident occurs and the nature of the vessels involved.
The Narrow Meaning
Proponents of the narrow definition focus on the literal linguistic meaning of “collision,” requiring direct physical contact or interlocking between two floating structures. Key characteristics include:
- Location: The incident must occur specifically at sea. This approach argues that maritime rules are strictly limited to sea-based incidents and do not extend to those occurring in rivers or inland waters.
- Vessel Type: At least one of the structures involved must legally qualify as a “ship”.
- Legal Adoption: The Saudi Commercial Maritime Law adopts this narrow view, defining a collision as occurring between two or more ships, or between a ship and a marine installation.
The Expanded Meaning
The majority of legal scholarship favors an expanded definition that prioritizes the type of vessel over the location of the incident. Key characteristics include:
- Location: It is immaterial whether the collision happens in international waters, territorial sea waters, or inland waters (such as rivers).
- Vessel Type: It covers physical impacts between two or more seagoing ships, or between a seagoing ship and an inland navigation vessel.
- Legal Adoption: The Brussels Convention of 1910 adopted this expanded meaning, applying its rules regardless of the specific waters where the collision occurs.
In summary, while the narrow view is confined to collisions at sea, the expanded view applies to maritime vessels regardless of whether they are in marine or inland waters
Which definition of maritime collision does the Saudi legislator adopt?
The Saudi legislator adopts the narrow meaning of maritime collision. According to Article (1) of the Saudi Commercial Maritime Law, a collision is defined as “a collision occurring between two or more ships, or between a ship and any marine installation“.
The narrow interpretation generally requires a physical impact occurring specifically at sea between structures where at least one is legally classified as a “ship”. While the expanded meaning (adopted by international conventions like the 1910 Brussels Convention) includes collisions in inland waters or between seagoing and inland vessels, the Saudi definition focuses more strictly on maritime structures.
Furthermore, the Saudi definition specifically includes marine installations; for example, an offshore platform used for resource extraction is deemed a ship under the law, meaning a collision involving such a platform falls under these rules.
Overview of the Types of Maritime Collision under the Saudi Commercial Maritime Law
The text examines the legal framework of maritime collisions under the Saudi Commercial Maritime Law, emphasizing how modern vessel speeds and sizes have increased navigational risks. It explains that the Saudi legislator adopts a narrow definition of collision, requiring physical contact between ships or marine installations as defined by national statutes. To qualify for legal recourse, the incident must involve physical impact and occur in the absence of a pre-existing contract between the parties. The source further outlines how liability is determined based on proven fault, distinguishing between incidents caused by a single vessel, unavoidable force majeure, or contributory negligence by multiple parties. Finally, it highlights the mandatory duty to render assistance to those in danger following an accident, noting that master mariners are personally responsible for such rescue efforts.
Sources:
1- Dr. Fahd Al-Haqbani – Maritime Collision in the Saudi Maritime Commercial System – p. 4.
Research published on the website Maritime Collision in the Saudi System.pdf, accessed at 6 PM on August 18, 2025.
2- Dr. Mahmoud Mukhtar Ahmed Bariri – Maritime Trade Law – Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya – 1999 Edition – p. 497.
3- The Convention was adopted on October 20, 1972, and entered into force on July 15, 1977.
4- The Maritime Commercial System issued by Royal Decree No. (M/33) dated 05/04/1440 AH.
5- Dr. Ali Jamal Al-Din Awad, Maritime Law, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo, pp. 474, 476.
6- Dr. Mahmoud Samir Al-Sharqawi, Maritime Law, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo, 2008, p. 590. Mustafa Kamal Taha, Maritime Law, University Press, Alexandria, 2006, p. 403.
7- The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not accede to the Brussels Convention of 1910, issued on September 23, 1910.
8- Dr. Ali Jamal al-Din Awad, Maritime Law – the aforementioned reference – p. 445.
9- Dr. Mahmoud Mukhtar Ahmed Bariri, Maritime Trade Law – the aforementioned reference, p. 503.
10- Article 255 of the Maritime Commercial Law issued by Royal Decree No. (M/33) dated 05/04/1440 AH.
11- Article 92 of the same law.
12- Article 95 of the same law.
13- Dr. Mustafa Taha, The New Maritime Law – 1995 – New University Publishing House, p. 7.
14- Dr. Fahd Al-Haqbani – Maritime Collision in the Saudi Maritime Commercial Law – Previous reference – p. 27.
15- Article 254/2 of the Maritime Commercial Law issued by Royal Decree No. (M/33) dated 05/04/1440 AH.
16- Dr. Mahmoud Mukhtar Ahmed Bariri – Maritime Trade Law – Previous reference, p. 509.
17- Article 254/3 of the Maritime Commercial Law issued by Royal Decree No. (M/33) dated 05/04/1440 AH.
18- Article 254/4 of the same law.
19- Article 254/5 of the same law.
20- Article 256 of the same law.
