At 21 30 hours on Jan. 5, 1975, the bulk carrier Lake Illawarra (7,274 tons gross) scythed into the Tasman Bridge in Hobart harbour. The vessel, carrying a cargo of zinc ore, sank almost immediately. Seven crew members are believed to have perished, along with the occupants of three cars that plunged into the river. The mile-long structure of the bridge is likely to be out of action for 18 months.

In a disaster such as this, the applicable law (based on an internationally agreed Convention) enables the owner of a ship to limit his liability to all injured parties other than crew, provided the occurrence did not result from the personal fault of the owner himself. Indeed, not only to limit his liability, but to limit it to a sum equivalent in Australia to a maximum of £16 (although more usually £108 elsewhere) for each ton of the ship’s limitation tonnage. The maximum limitation fund for a ship the size of the Lake Illawarra works out, very approximately, at £105,000 according to the £16 rule and £707,000 according to the £108 rule1.

Few words are needed to express how far these figures fall short of the sums which would be needed to compensate in full the passengers in the cars, the owners of the bridge, and the owners of ship’s cargo in a catastrophe such as that which befell the Lake Illawarra.

Were an aircraft instead of a ship to be responsible for an accident such as that which damaged the Tasman Bridge, in most countries of the world its owners would be liable to the victims on the ground up to the full proof of their loss2.

The disparity between air and sea can be illustrated with further emphasis if the plight of the hapless passenger is considered. It is true that, in the absence of any evidence of “wilful misconduct” the operator of a commercial aircraft engaged in international carriage, and, very often, in domestic carriage too, is able to limit liability towards passengers on a per capita basis. By way of example, the limit applicable to a passenger aboard a United Kingdom domestic flight is £30,531.

On the other hand, however, it is the case in various countries, including the U.K., that sea carriers are lawfully entitled wholly to exclude liability towards passengers in their contracts of carriage. Even where a sea passenger can look forward to some recovery, he will usually be competing with other personal claims on the vessel’s limitation fund.

The above comparison between air and sea is somewhat unfair since attention has been focused on the extreme cases. In addition, it should be mentioned that it is easier for a claimant to establish “personal fault” on the part of a shipowner and thus break