COLLISION - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

COLLISIONAuthored

The Law Mind • 1119 words

Definition

The striking together of two vessels at sea, or the impact of a moving vessel against any object. In admiralty law, collision is the foundational concept organizing a substantial body of maritime tort doctrine, governing liability allocation, damages, and jurisdiction.

Two related but distinct concepts operate under this heading:

1. Collision (strict sense): The impact of two vessels both in motion at the time of contact. This is the classical definition and the one most source dictionaries treat as primary.

2. Allision: The striking of a moving vessel against a stationary object — a fixed pier, an anchored vessel, a buoy. The term collision is routinely used in a broad sense to absorb allision, and courts and statutes often do not distinguish between them. Researchers should not assume historical sources use the terms consistently.

A collision may occur without fault on either side. Where neither vessel is at fault, courts in England, the United States, and France have generally applied the rule that each party bears its own loss. Where fault is established on one side, the offending vessel is liable for damages sufficient to restore the injured vessel and cargo to pre-collision condition. Hypothetical and consequential damages are excluded from the admiralty measure. Where fault is shared, the doctrine of divided damages (equal division) was the traditional admiralty rule in the United States; comparative fault principles have since displaced it.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An instance of colliding; any event in which two or more bodies exert forces on each other in a relatively short time. Physical contact is not always required.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of striking together of two hard bodies; a violent meeting, as of railroad trains; also used figuratively for a state of opposition or antagonism.

The ordinary meaning of collision is broad and bilateral — two things coming together. The legal meaning in admiralty is narrower and more technical in one direction: it presupposes moving vessels and a maritime context, distinguishes collision from allision, and triggers a specific body of jurisdictional rules, fault doctrines, and damages frameworks that have no counterpart in everyday usage. The figurative sense (collision of principles) has no legal application whatsoever.

Common Confusion

Collision vs. Allision: The distinction matters for liability analysis. When one vessel is stationary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the moving vessel was at fault — a rule without direct application in a true two-vessel collision. Historical dictionaries flag this distinction; modern practitioners and courts often use collision to cover both. Researchers working with older admiralty materials should check whether the source distinguishes the terms before drawing conclusions about fault allocation.

Collision vs. Accident: Anderson's cross-references collision to the broader concepts of accident and negligence. In non-maritime contexts — vehicle collisions, railroad collisions — the term sheds its admiralty-specific meaning and resolves into general negligence doctrine. The admiralty framework does not apply to land-based vehicle impacts merely because the word collision is used.

Why It Matters in Research

Admiralty jurisdiction hook: Collision on navigable waters is a classic basis for admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Any research touching vessel-on-vessel damage claims should begin by confirming the jurisdictional predicate. This affects the applicable procedural rules, the availability of limitation of liability, and the choice of forum.

The divided damages shift: For most of American admiralty history, when both vessels were at fault, damages were divided equally regardless of the degree of fault. The Supreme Court displaced this rule in favor of comparative fault in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. (1975). This is a hard doctrinal boundary in the corpus. Cases and treatises before 1975 apply the old equal-division rule; materials after apply proportionate fault. Researchers must date their sources carefully and not assume continuity.

COLREGS as background law: The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) establish navigation rules whose violation creates a statutory presumption of fault. The Encyclopedia entry on this topic is the primary corpus resource for understanding how COLREGS interact with admiralty liability. Any collision case involving fault analysis will connect to these rules.

Damages measure: The admiralty rule limiting recovery to restoration value (excluding hypothetical and consequential damages) is a specialized measure that diverges from common law tort damages. Researchers tracking damages arguments in historical sources should note that this limitation was consistently applied across jurisdictions represented in the corpus.

Cargo claims: Bouvier notes that both vessel damage and cargo damage are recoverable in collision actions. This means collision doctrine intersects with cargo insurance, bills of lading, and shipper liability — corpus areas that may appear under different headings in historical sources.

Historical Dictionary Support

The source dictionaries agree on the core maritime definition: collision is the striking together of vessels, centered on admiralty jurisdiction, and organized around fault-based liability. All major sources recognize the collision/allision distinction while acknowledging that collision is used loosely to cover both.

Burrill provides the most etymologically grounded entry, tracing the Latin collisio and noting the French term abordage — a reminder that this body of law was heavily influenced by civilian and European maritime codes. Researchers working with French or civil law maritime sources will encounter abordage where English sources use collision.

Rapalje & Lawrence are the most concise and jurisdictionally focused, emphasizing admiralty jurisdiction and the specialized procedural rules governing collision cases. Anderson's is the most practically expansive, extending the term to vehicles and noting that allision (a stationary body struck by a moving one) is properly included.

What the historical sources largely omit: the transition to comparative fault, COLREGS as a codified negligence framework, and the treatment of collision in the context of limitation of liability proceedings. These are developments the historical dictionaries predate or incompletely address, and the Encyclopedia entry should be consulted to fill those gaps.

Jurisdictional Note

Collision doctrine is substantially federal in the United States, governed by admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law rather than state tort law. The COLREGS apply to vessels on international waters and the navigable waters of the United States. In non-maritime jurisdictions or for land vehicle collisions, the term collision carries no special legal content beyond ordinary negligence and traffic law principles.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Collision — Navigation Rules (COLREGS), Fault, and Divided Damages (The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia)

COLLISIONmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

In maritime law. The act of ships or vessels striking together. In its strict sense, collision means the in- pact of two vessels both moving, and is dis- tinguished from allision, which designates the striking of a moving vessel against one that is stationary. But collision is used in a broad sense, to include allision, and perhaps other species of encounters between vessels. The term is not inapplicable to cases where a stationary vessel is struck by one under way, strictly termed "allision; " or where one vessel is brought into contact with another by swinging at brought into contact withjury received by a vessel D at her moorings, in consequence of being violently rubbed or pressed against by a second vessel lying along-side of her, in consequence of a collision against such second vessel by a third one under way, may be compensated for, under the general head of "collision," as well as an injury which is the direct result of a "blow," properly so called. Abb. Adm. 73.

COLLISIONmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

In Maritime Law. The act of ships or vessels striking together, or of one vessel running against or foul of another. It may happen without fault, no blame being imputable to those in charge of either vessel. In such case, in the English, American, and French courts, each party must bear his own loss; Pardessus, Droit Comm. p. 4, t. 2, c. 2, § 4; 14 How. 353; 1 Pars. Sh. & Adm. 525. A collision by inevitable accident is when a collision is caused exclusively by natural causes, without any fault on the part of the owners or those in charge; 23 Wall. 169;3 Cliff. 456; 12 Ct. Cl. 480. It must appear that neither vessel was in fault; 3 Cliff. 636. Where the captain and crew, except the second mate, were taken sick, and a collision occurred, through the absence of a lookout, it was held to be inevitable ac- cident; 8 Reporter 389. See also 7 Biss. 249. It may happen by mutual fault, that is, by the misconduct, fault, or negligence of those in charge of both vessels; 49 Fed. Rep. 475; 50 id. 581, 590; 53 id. 286; 9 C. C. A. 73. In such case, neither party has relief at common law; 3 Kent 231; 3 C. & P. 528; 21 Wend. 188, 615; 6 Hill 592; 12 Metc. 415; 26 Me. 39; (though now other- wise in England by the Judicature Act 1873;) but the maritime courts aggregate the damages to both vessels and their car- goes, and then divide the same equally be- tween the two vessels; 3 Kent 232; 1 Conkl. Adm. 374-376; 17 How. 170; 23 Wall. 84; 3 Ben. 371; 49 Fed. Rep. 765; 1C. С. А. 224; 49 Fed. Rep. 169; 51 id. 766; 56 id. 271; 122 U. S. 97. See 1 Swab. 60-101. But where the collision is by intentional wrong of both parties, the libel will be dis- missed; 4 Blatch. 124. It may happen by inscrutable fault, that is, by the fault of those in charge of one or both vessels and yet under such circum- stances that it is impossible to determine who is in fault. In such case the Ameri- can courts of admiralty and the European maritime courts adopt the rule of an equal division of the aggregate damage; 1 Abb. N. S. 451; Daveis 365; Flanders, Mar. Law, 296. But the English courts have refused a remedy in admiralty; 2 Hagg. Adm. 145; 6 Thornt. 240; and see 2 Hugh. 128. It may happen by the fault of those be- longing to one of the colliding vessels, with- out any fault being imputable to the other vessel. In such case the owners of the vessel in fault must bear the damage which their own vessel has sustained, and are liable as well as their master to a claim for compensation from the owners of the other vessel for the damage done to her; 1 Swab. 23, 173, 200, 211; 3 W. Rob. 283; 1 Blatchf. 211; 2 Wall. Jr. 52; 1 How. 28; 13 id. 101. See 48 Fed. Rep. 334; although wilfully committed by the master; Crabbe 22; 1 Wash. C. C. 13; 3 id. 262. But see 1 W. Rob. 399; 2 id. 502; 1 Hill 343; 19 Wend. 343; 1 East 106; 6 Jur. 443. Where one vessel, clearly shown to be guilty of a fault adequate in itself to have caused a collision, seeks to impugn the other vessel, there is a presumption in favor of the latter, which can only be rebutted by clear proof of a contributing fault, and this principle is peculiarly applicable to a vessel at anchor, complying with regulations concerning lights and receiving injuries, through the fault of a steamer in motion; 158 U. S. 186. If a cargo be damaged by collision between two vessels, the owner may pursue both vessels or either, or the owners or both, or either; and in case he proceeds against one only, and both are held in fault, he may recover his entire damages of the one sued; 158 U. S. 303. These four classes of cases are noted in 2 Dods. 85, by Lord Stowell. Full compensation is, in general, to be made in such cases for the loss and damage which the prosecuting party has sustained by the fault of the party proceeded against; 2 W. Rob. 279; including all damages which are fairly attributable exclusively to the act of the original wrong-doer, or which may be said to be the direct consequence of his wrongful act; 3 W. Rob. 7, 282; 11 M. & W. 228; 1 Swab.200; 1 Blatchf. 211; 2 Wall. Jr. 52; 1 How. 28; 18 id. 118; 17 id. 170. The personal liability of the owners is, however, limited in some cases to the value of the vessel and freight (but not by com- mon law, or the earlier civil law, or the earlier general maritime law); Code de Comm. art. 216; Stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (Merchants' Shipping Act), pt. 9. § 503; 9 U. S. Stat. L. 635; 10 id. 68, 72, 73; 3 W. Rob. 16, 41, 101; 1 E. L. & Eq. 637;8 Hagg. Adm. 481; 15 M. & W. 391; 3 Stor. 465; Daveis 172; 2 Am. L. Reg. 157; 13 Wall. 104. See 5 Mich. 368; 53 Fed. Rep. 952. The owner is not liable in respect of the insurance moneys; 8 Ben. 312; 9 Cent. L. J. 285; nor for loss of bounty the vessel might have earned; 3 C. C. A. 534. In maritime law the vessel itself is hypothe- cated as security for the injury done in such cases; 1 Swab. 1,8; 22 E. L. & Eq. 62, 72; 14 How. 351; 16 id. 469. In Eng- land, the owner's liability is the value of the offending ship in her undamaged s

COLLISIONmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888

- The violent coming together of two ships, causing damage to one or both. Cases of damage caused by the collision of ships form an important part of admiralty jurisdiction. These cases are subject to peculiarules, regulating the

COLLISIONn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

The act of striking together; a striking together, as of two hard bodies; a violent meeting, as of railroad trains; a clashing. A state of opposition; antagonism; interference. The collision of contrary false principles. Bp. Warburton. Sensitive to the most trifling collisions. W. Irving.

collisionnoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

An instance of colliding. | Any event in which two or more bodies exert forces on each other in a relatively short time. In a collision, physical contact of two bodies is not necessary. | Clipping of naming collision. | Clipping of collision detection; tangibility.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In