VESSEL COLLISION COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE [________________________________] DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. [________________]
IN ADMIRALTY

THE VESSEL M/V [________________________________],
her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel,
furniture, equipment, and freight, in rem,

and

[________________________________],
as owner and/or operator of the M/V [________________________________],
in personam,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM VESSEL COLLISION

Plaintiff, [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, brings this admiralty action for damages arising from a vessel collision and alleges as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an admiralty and maritime action for damages arising from a collision between vessels on navigable waters of the United States that occurred on [__/__/____].

2. This action is brought both in rem against the offending vessel and in personam against her owner and/or operator.

3. Plaintiff invokes the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court and designates this as an admiralty case pursuant to Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

4. Plaintiff [________________________________] is [☐ a corporation organized under the laws of ________________] [☐ a limited liability company] [☐ a partnership] [☐ an individual] with its principal place of business at [________________________________].

5. Plaintiff is the [☐ owner] [☐ operator] [☐ charterer] [☐ other: ________________] of the vessel [________________________________] (the "Plaintiff's Vessel").

B. Defendants

6. Defendant [________________________________] is [☐ a corporation organized under the laws of ________________] [☐ a limited liability company] [☐ a partnership] [☐ an individual] with its principal place of business at [________________________________].

7. Defendant is the [☐ owner] [☐ operator] [☐ charterer] [☐ managing agent] of the vessel M/V [________________________________] (the "Defendant Vessel").

8. The Defendant Vessel is described as follows:

9. The Defendant Vessel is currently located at [________________________________] within this District.

III. PLAINTIFF'S VESSEL

10. At the time of the collision, Plaintiff's Vessel was described as follows:

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases.

12. Claims arising from vessel collisions on navigable waters are within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because [☐ the collision occurred in this District] [☐ the Defendant Vessel is located in this District] [☐ Defendant resides or does business in this District].

V. THE COLLISION

A. Location and Circumstances

14. On [__/__/____], at approximately [____] hours [☐ local time] [☐ UTC], a collision occurred between Plaintiff's Vessel and the Defendant Vessel.

15. The collision occurred at or near:

a. Geographic Position: Latitude [________________], Longitude [________________]

b. Location Description: [________________________________]

c. Waterway/Body of Water: [________________________________]

16. At the time of the collision, the following conditions existed:

a. Weather: [________________________________]

b. Visibility: [________________________________]

c. Wind: [________________________________]

d. Sea State: [________________________________]

e. Current/Tide: [________________________________]

f. Time of Day: [☐ Daylight] [☐ Darkness] [☐ Dawn/Dusk]

B. Applicable Navigation Rules

17. The applicable rules of navigation at the location of the collision were:

☐ International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) - 33 U.S.C. § 1602

☐ Inland Navigation Rules - 33 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq.

☐ [________________________________]

C. Movements Prior to Collision

18. Prior to the collision, Plaintiff's Vessel was:

a. Course: [____]° [☐ true] [☐ magnetic]

b. Speed: [____] knots

c. Action: [☐ proceeding on course] [☐ anchored] [☐ moored] [☐ maneuvering] [☐ other: ________________]

d. Navigation Lights: [☐ properly displayed] [☐ not required]

e. Sound Signals: [________________________________]

19. Prior to the collision, the Defendant Vessel was:

a. Course: [____]° [☐ true] [☐ magnetic]

b. Speed: [____] knots

c. Action: [☐ proceeding on course] [☐ anchored] [☐ moored] [☐ maneuvering] [☐ other: ________________]

20. The circumstances leading to the collision are described as follows:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

D. The Collision

21. The vessels collided at approximately [____] hours.

22. The point of impact was:

a. On Plaintiff's Vessel: [________________________________]

b. On Defendant Vessel: [________________________________]

23. The angle of impact was approximately [____]°.

24. After the collision:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

VI. FAULT OF THE DEFENDANT VESSEL

25. The collision was caused solely by the fault and negligence of the Defendant Vessel, her master, officers, crew, and/or those responsible for her navigation.

26. The Defendant Vessel violated the applicable Rules of Navigation in one or more of the following respects:

☐ a. Rule 5 (Lookout): Failing to maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing;

☐ b. Rule 6 (Safe Speed): Failing to proceed at a safe speed;

☐ c. Rule 7 (Risk of Collision): Failing to use all available means to determine if risk of collision existed;

☐ d. Rule 8 (Action to Avoid Collision): Failing to take early and substantial action to avoid collision;

☐ e. Rule 12 (Sailing Vessels): Failing to yield as required for sailing vessels;

☐ f. Rule 13 (Overtaking): Failing to keep clear while overtaking;

☐ g. Rule 14 (Head-On Situation): Failing to alter course to starboard in a head-on situation;

☐ h. Rule 15 (Crossing Situation): Failing to give way in a crossing situation;

☐ i. Rule 16 (Give-Way Vessel): Failing to take early and substantial action to keep well clear as give-way vessel;

☐ j. Rule 17 (Stand-On Vessel): Failing to maintain course and speed as stand-on vessel or taking improper action;

☐ k. Rule 18 (Responsibilities Between Vessels): Failing to yield as required by vessel type priorities;

☐ l. Rule 19 (Restricted Visibility): Failing to navigate properly in restricted visibility;

☐ m. Rule 34 (Maneuvering and Warning Signals): Failing to sound proper signals;

☐ n. Rule 35 (Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility): Failing to sound fog signals;

☐ o. [________________________________]

27. The Defendant Vessel was also negligent in:

☐ a. Failing to use radar or AIS properly;

☐ b. Operating with an inadequate or incompetent crew;

☐ c. Operating with defective navigation or communication equipment;

☐ d. Failing to post a proper watch;

☐ e. Operating while the master or crew were impaired;

☐ f. Proceeding at excessive speed for the conditions;

☐ g. [________________________________]

VII. APPLICATION OF COLLISION PRESUMPTIONS

A. The Pennsylvania Rule

28. The Defendant Vessel violated one or more statutory rules intended to prevent collisions.

29. Pursuant to The Pennsylvania Rule, the burden is on the Defendant to show not only that its violation of the rules was not a contributing cause of the collision, but that it could not have been a cause.

B. The Oregon Rule (If Applicable)

30. [If allision] The Defendant Vessel, a moving vessel, struck Plaintiff's [☐ vessel at anchor] [☐ vessel properly moored] [☐ stationary structure].

31. Pursuant to The Oregon Rule, the moving vessel is presumed to be at fault for the allision and bears the burden of proving otherwise.

C. The Louisiana Rule (If Applicable)

32. [If drifting vessel] The Defendant Vessel was drifting at the time of the collision.

33. Pursuant to The Louisiana Rule, the drifting vessel is presumed to be at fault.

VIII. PLAINTIFF'S VESSEL WAS NOT AT FAULT

34. At all times prior to and during the collision, Plaintiff's Vessel:

a. Maintained a proper lookout;

b. Proceeded at a safe speed;

c. Complied with all applicable navigation rules;

d. Displayed proper navigation lights and signals; and

e. Took all reasonable action to avoid the collision.

35. Plaintiff denies any fault or negligence contributing to the collision.

IX. DAMAGES

36. As a direct and proximate result of the collision caused by the Defendant Vessel's fault, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:

A. Vessel Damage

B. Loss of Use/Loss of Earnings

C. Cargo Damage

D. Other Damages

E. Total Damages Summary

X. MARITIME LIEN

37. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff has a maritime tort lien against the Defendant Vessel.

38. Plaintiff is entitled to enforce this lien by arrest and, if necessary, sale of the Defendant Vessel.

XI. REQUEST FOR ARREST

39. Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a Warrant for the Arrest of the Defendant Vessel pursuant to Supplemental Rule C to secure Plaintiff's maritime lien.

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Accept jurisdiction over this admiralty and maritime action;

B. Issue a Warrant for the Arrest of the Defendant Vessel M/V [________________________________];

C. Adjudge and decree that the collision was caused solely by the fault and negligence of the Defendant Vessel;

D. Adjudge and decree that Plaintiff was without fault;

E. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $[________________], plus pre-judgment interest;

F. Adjudge that Plaintiff has a valid maritime lien against the Defendant Vessel;

G. Award Plaintiff costs of suit;

H. Order the sale of the Defendant Vessel if judgment is not satisfied; and

I. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Bar No.: [________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

VERIFICATION

I, [________________________________], being duly sworn, state that I am the [☐ Plaintiff] [☐ authorized representative of Plaintiff], that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the facts stated therein are true to my knowledge, except as to matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

______________________________________
[Signature]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [________________], 20[____].

______________________________________
Notary Public

PRACTICE NOTES

Statute of Limitations:
- Actions for collision damages: 2 years from date of casualty
- 46 U.S.C. § 30106

Proportional Fault:
Under maritime law, damages are apportioned according to degree of fault (pure comparative fault).

Key Collision Presumptions:
1. Pennsylvania Rule: Violation of navigation rule creates rebuttable presumption of fault
2. Oregon Rule: Moving vessel presumed at fault when striking anchored/moored vessel
3. Louisiana Rule: Drifting vessel presumed at fault

Evidence to Preserve:
- Voyage data recorder (VDR)
- AIS data
- Radar plots
- Deck and engine logs
- Bridge audio recordings
- Photographs
- Witness statements
- Weather data

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• COLREGS (33 U.S.C. § 1602): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1602
• Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. § 2001): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/chapter-34
• Maritime Statute of Limitations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/30106
• Pennsylvania Rule - The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873)