After having established the first international law over 800 years ago, maritime interests have come to find the contours of the legal shore and the location of legal rocks unchartable. Ironically, the erosion of the uniform, international character of maritime law has occurred at a time when other international subjects have experienced growth and conformity. One aspect of maritime law that has been especially disordered is the limitation of liability of shipowners for torts. However, with a few modest corrections, the principle of limitation can be seen to flow with the modern changes in tort law. Limitation does not have to be marooned, vulnerable to shifting judicial currents.

The idea of limitation of liability originated from a shipowner’s unwillingness to engage in the risky business of foreign trade without some way of knowing in advance his total exposure and the rules that would apply to the enterprise. The practical solution was to limit the recovery of injured parties to the value of the ship and to limit all proceedings arising out of the collision to one forum. This solution fostered trade to the benefit of jurisdictions adhering to the international rules, and it simplified the legal problems arising from the presence of foreign maritime claimants. International Conventions, such as the London Convention of 1976,1 have been promulgated to codify these practices.

The original limit on the damages was the ship. An owner could simply abandon the vessel to the potential judgment creditors. The claimants divided the value of the vessel pro rata, a procedure not unlike bankruptcy. The value of the pending freight was included in the assets available to pay claims. Modern versions of limitation generally make the shipowner liable in effect for twice the value of the ship because he could lose the vessel and an equal amount in third party liability. The latest Conventions use a pecuniary value per ton of displacement, sometimes with a