By
Marilyn Raia, marilyn.raia@bullivant.com
May 2012
Federal law governs
countless aspects of the maritime industry. It should come as no surprise then,
that vessel logbooks have not escaped government regulation. This article
explains some of the laws applicable to official vessel logs and the
ramifications of non-compliance with them.
The Vessels
Required to Have a Log
Title 46 of the United States Code sets forth the two categories of vessels required to maintain an official log: 1) a vessel on a voyage from a United States port to a foreign port (except a Canadian port); and 2) a vessel in excess of 100 gross tons on a voyage between a United States port on the Atlantic Ocean and a United States port on the Pacific Ocean. As a courtesy, blank logbooks are available free of charge from the United States Coast Guard. They can be obtained via an internet request. A master of a vessel that is required to maintain a log, who fails to maintain a log, is liable to the government for a civil penalty of $200.
Title 46 of the United States Code sets forth the two categories of vessels required to maintain an official log: 1) a vessel on a voyage from a United States port to a foreign port (except a Canadian port); and 2) a vessel in excess of 100 gross tons on a voyage between a United States port on the Atlantic Ocean and a United States port on the Pacific Ocean. As a courtesy, blank logbooks are available free of charge from the United States Coast Guard. They can be obtained via an internet request. A master of a vessel that is required to maintain a log, who fails to maintain a log, is liable to the government for a civil penalty of $200.
The Required
Contents of the Official Log
Federal law also specifies what entries a vessel’s master must make in the official log and when time-wise, the entries must be made. Contrary to what might be expected, federal statutory law does not require the official log to contain entries about the weather and/or sea conditions encountered by the vessel, the vessel’s geographic position, or the vessel’s work. Rather, the master must make entries about such things as pre-departure testing of the steering gear and propulsion systems, fire and boat drills, draft markings, hatch checks, and testing of lifeboat winches. The master must also make entries about the vessel’s crew including among other things, convictions and punishments, deaths and illnesses, and the name of each seaman whose employment is terminated and the circumstances thereof. Finally, the official log must contain information about marine casualties. Some types of vessels, such as tankers and passenger vessels, have more particularized requirements for log entries.
Federal law also specifies what entries a vessel’s master must make in the official log and when time-wise, the entries must be made. Contrary to what might be expected, federal statutory law does not require the official log to contain entries about the weather and/or sea conditions encountered by the vessel, the vessel’s geographic position, or the vessel’s work. Rather, the master must make entries about such things as pre-departure testing of the steering gear and propulsion systems, fire and boat drills, draft markings, hatch checks, and testing of lifeboat winches. The master must also make entries about the vessel’s crew including among other things, convictions and punishments, deaths and illnesses, and the name of each seaman whose employment is terminated and the circumstances thereof. Finally, the official log must contain information about marine casualties. Some types of vessels, such as tankers and passenger vessels, have more particularized requirements for log entries.
United
States federal statutory law does not require entries in the official log
pertaining to navigation of the vessel. However, an international treaty to
which the United States is a signatory, the 1978 International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, does. It
requires a proper record of the movement and activities during the watch
relating to the navigation of the ship.
In addition
to what must be put in the official log, federal statutory law dictates when
and how the entries must be made. As a general rule, the log entries must be
made as soon as possible after the occurrence of the event being entered. If
the entry is not made on the date the event occurred, the entry must be dated
and state when the event did occur. If an event being entered is about
something that happened before the vessel arrived at the final port of
discharge, the entry must be made within twenty-four hours after arrival.
Each entry in the official log must be signed by the master. It must also be signed by the chief mate or another seaman. A master failing to make the required entries in the official log is liable to the government for a civil penalty of $200. Moreover, a person making an entry in the log more than twenty-four hours after the vessel’s arrival at the final port of discharge, about something that happened before that arrival, is liable to the government for a civil penalty of $150.
Commercial
vessels and naval vessels often maintain a draft or “rough” log. The entries
from the rough log are later put into the official or “smooth” log. Changes may
be made in the “rough” log. However, entries in a vessel’s official log should
be made in ink and without erasures. If an entry in the official log must be
corrected, it should be stricken with a single line and remain legible. The
correction should be initialed by the person required to sign the log for that
watch.
Presumption
of Accuracy and Binding Effect of Log Entries
As a general rule, entries made in a vessel’s official log by the vessel’s officers are binding on and considered an admission against the interest of the vessel owner. If the entry is made by someone who should have knowledge of the facts or an opportunity to determine the true facts, it will be held binding on the vessel owner unless a mistake is shown.
As a general rule, entries made in a vessel’s official log by the vessel’s officers are binding on and considered an admission against the interest of the vessel owner. If the entry is made by someone who should have knowledge of the facts or an opportunity to determine the true facts, it will be held binding on the vessel owner unless a mistake is shown.
The entries
in a vessel’s logbook are presumed to be accurate, the rationale being a ship’s
officer would not have made a log entry unless he/she believed the entry to be
true. However, under certain circumstances, the entries may be disregarded in
later litigation and held not binding. A mistake sufficient to avoid the binding
effect of a log entry must be proved by conclusive evidence, a high standard to
meet.
For example,
in Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Garber Brothers, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 832
(E.D. La. 1980), the master of a vessel owned by Garber Brothers made an entry
in the vessel’s log that while picking up the anchor and moving to another side
of a drilling rig, “hung anchor in pipeline”. Texas Eastern, the pipeline’s
owner, sued Garber Brothers for damage found in the pipeline. Texas Eastern
argued the log entry was conclusive evidence of liability on the part of Garber
Brothers. The court disagreed and held the log entry was not conclusive
evidence of the anchor making contact with the pipeline. It reasoned that when
the master made the entry, he did not know and could not have known what the
true facts were. It further reasoned the entry was not based on the master’s
personal knowledge but on what the master had been told by someone on the
drilling rig.
Ramifications
of False or Missing Log Entries
The importance of maintaining a properly completed and accurate log cannot be overstated. When a log contains erasures or lacks the required entries, the consequences can be devastating for the vessel owner. While courts have held false log entries are not “gospel”, false entries are likely to have a “considerable effect,” as one court said, on the outcome of a case. Moreover, the absence of entries in the log that should be there, raises a presumption the entries would be unfavorable to the vessel owner. In what has become an often quoted summary of the law about logbooks, the judge in Capehorn Steamship Company v. Texas Company , 152 F.Supp. 33 (E.D. La. 1957) said:
The importance of maintaining a properly completed and accurate log cannot be overstated. When a log contains erasures or lacks the required entries, the consequences can be devastating for the vessel owner. While courts have held false log entries are not “gospel”, false entries are likely to have a “considerable effect,” as one court said, on the outcome of a case. Moreover, the absence of entries in the log that should be there, raises a presumption the entries would be unfavorable to the vessel owner. In what has become an often quoted summary of the law about logbooks, the judge in Capehorn Steamship Company v. Texas Company , 152 F.Supp. 33 (E.D. La. 1957) said:
Suffice it to say that under the law of the sea, when a party comes into court with log entries which will not stand the test of credibility, that party’s chance of success in the litigation is little short of nonexistent.
In The
Silver Palm, 94 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1937), a collision between a navy
cruiser and a merchant ship was attributed to the reckless speed of the navy
cruiser in the fog. The court found numerous erasures and alterations in the
official log of the navy cruiser. In particular, when the fog whistle of the
merchant ship was heard, the engines on the navy cruiser were ordered only to
proceed at two-thirds speed. A log entry was made reflecting the speed
reduction. That log entry was later erased and the words “all engines were
ordered stopped” were inserted. The court held the alteration of the logbook
“not only casts suspicion on the whole case of the vessel but creates a strong
presumption the erased matter was adverse to her contention.”
In an
unreported federal case in San Francisco involving dock damage, the log did not
contain an entry about the pre-voyage testing of the ship’s steering and
braking systems. Such testing and an entry confirming the testing were
statutorily required. Those systems did not work as the pilot expected and
damage ensued. Because there was no record of the required tests having been
done, the court concluded the testing had not been done. The court also
disregarded the master’s testimony that based on information he received from
the chief mate, he was certain the required testing had been done. The court
held the absence of a log entry about the required testing proved it had not
occurred. Because the required testing had not occurred, the vessel owner was
held to have breached a statute, which raised a presumption of fault. Because
the steering and braking systems could have caused the accident, the vessel owner
could not meet its burden of proof to avoid liability.