Both to Blame Collision Clause

An Institute Cargo Clause indemnifying the cargo owner against the cost of reimbursing the shipowner who is compelled under foreign law to pay 50 per cent of a third party’s cargo loss to a third party shipowner following a collision in which both were blameworthy. Under US law the shipowners are held of equal blame and the cargo owner can recover in full from the third party shipowner who then recovers 50 per cent from the ship carrying the cargo. Provisions in the running down clause prevent the shipowner recovering in full under the hull policy, nor is the Protection and Indemnity Club liable, causing the shipowner to pass the risk to the cargo owner under the affreightment.

Breach of statutory duty

A tort where the defendant has committed a breach of duty imposed by statute or regulation and Parliament intended to confer a statutory remedy on the claimant. HSWA 1974, s.47, provides that breaches of the Act do not create civil remedies but a breach of regulations, (e.g. PUWER 1998) is actionable unless the regulation indicates otherwise. Where the statute is silent on civil remedies, the courts have to enquire into the intention of Parliament.
***
In the case of many statutes a breach of a duty imposed by the statute gives a right of action in tort to a person injured by the breach.

Breach of warranty of authority

Occurs where an agent, acting in excess of his actual or apparent authority, ‘contracts’ with or commits, a third party. The breach does not bind his principal and is actionable against the agent by the third party. ‘Breach of warranty of authority’ is insured as a ‘wrongful act’ under a directors’ and officers’ liability policy and is covered under professional indemnity policies.