New Orleans Tanker Crash: Flag State, Port State and Liability Questions
Introduction
The tanker crash involving a cruise ship in New Orleans on November 13, 2026, left the American Heritage riverboat partially submerged after it was struck by the Atlantic Asphalt on the Mississippi River. The passenger vessel was docked near the Port of New Orleans when the collision occurred. Emergency crews rescued people from the water, while American Cruise Lines coordinated the evacuation of passengers and crew with local authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The incident involved two vessels operating under different national registrations. Atlantic Asphalt is registered in the Marshall Islands, while American Heritage belongs to the U.S.-flagged fleet operated by American Cruise Lines. Nevertheless, the collision occurred within American inland waters, where U.S. navigation rules and maritime jurisdiction apply regardless of the tanker's foreign registration.
The principal legal questions concern the navigation of a large tanker near a stationary passenger vessel, the Coast Guard's investigative powers, the relationship between flag-state and port-state authority, and potential liability for injuries and property damage. American maritime law provides the main framework for resolving those questions. International maritime law remains relevant to the tanker's registration, regulatory oversight, and certain safety and insurance obligations.
1. The Atlantic Asphalt–American Heritage Crash
The collision occurred at approximately 12:30 p.m. local time on November 13, 2026. According to information provided by the Port of New Orleans and reported by Reuters and The Washington Post, Atlantic Asphalt struck American Heritage while the riverboat was docked near the port's administration building, close to the Crescent City Connection bridge.
The passenger vessel had reportedly arrived about two hours earlier. Port officials initially estimated that 129 passengers, in addition to crew members, were aboard when the tanker struck. American Cruise Lines identifies American Heritage as a paddlewheel riverboat built in 2015, with accommodation for approximately 150 guests. That figure represents passenger capacity, not the total number of passengers and crew present during the accident.
Images and contemporaneous reporting showed the riverboat listing heavily after the impact and becoming partially submerged. The vessel's position created an immediate emergency for people aboard, including those who entered the water as the ship tilted. Nearby vessels and emergency responders assisted in the rescue.
The New Orleans Fire Department, New Orleans Police Department, Port of New Orleans Harbor Police, U.S. Coast Guard, and emergency medical personnel participated in the response. The Coast Guard restricted river traffic near the incident while rescue operations proceeded. Passengers were brought to the port administration building for assistance and medical assessment.
Later reporting by the Associated Press and Axios indicated that approximately 180 passengers and crew members had been accounted for and that 32 people had been taken to local hospitals. Mayor Helena Moreno described the successful rescue of those aboard at a press conference. No fatalities were reported in those accounts, although the full medical consequences of the incident were not yet established.
The cause of the collision remained unresolved in the contemporaneous official information. Neither the fact that the tanker struck a docked vessel nor the extent of the resulting damage establishes, by itself, whether the immediate cause involved navigation, propulsion, steering, communication, pilotage, or another operational failure.
2. Flag-State and Port-State Authority in New Orleans
A ship's flag identifies the state under whose nationality it operates and which exercises the corresponding responsibilities of registration and maritime oversight. That relationship becomes particularly significant when a foreign-registered commercial vessel is involved in a serious casualty outside its flag state's territory.
The location of the incident is equally important. The Atlantic Asphalt–American Heritage collision occurred on the Lower Mississippi River, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. American authorities were consequently entitled to respond to the casualty, regulate affected navigation, investigate possible violations, and exercise their powers under applicable federal law.
The coexistence of flag-state and territorial authority is a familiar feature of international maritime law. The allocation of jurisdiction varies according to the maritime area concerned, as explained more broadly in the law of the sea. An accident inside an American port or navigable river presents a different legal situation from a collision on the high seas.
2.1 The Marshall Islands as the Tanker's Flag State
The maritime insurer Gard identifies Atlantic Asphalt, IMO number 9798428, as a Marshall Islands-flagged asphalt tanker built in 2017. Its vessel record lists a gross tonnage of 14,485 and Bureau Veritas as its classification society. Gard also identifies Nave Shipping S.A. in its P&I owner records.
These details establish the vessel's recorded flag and certain aspects of its maritime documentation. They do not, without additional corporate and registration records, establish the complete chain of beneficial ownership, operational management, or responsibility for decisions made aboard the ship.
Under international maritime practice, a flag state exercises responsibilities concerning vessel registration, applicable technical requirements, certification, and oversight. Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea describes important elements of flag-state duties. Its specific provision concerning inquiries into certain high-seas casualties should not, however, be treated as the direct legal basis for investigating an accident within the Mississippi River.
The Marshall Islands' responsibilities may be relevant to the tanker's certification, safety management, and any independent examination undertaken by its maritime administration. They do not prevent the United States from investigating conduct occurring within American waters. The precise relationship between a possible flag-state inquiry and a U.S. investigation would depend on the steps actually taken by the authorities concerned.
2.2 United States Jurisdiction and Port-State Control
The United States exercises extensive regulatory authority over commercial navigation on the Mississippi River. The Coast Guard's responsibilities include vessel safety, maritime law enforcement, management of navigable waterways, casualty investigations, and protection of the marine environment. These powers apply to relevant foreign vessels operating within U.S. jurisdiction.
Port-state control is one component of that authority. It permits appropriate inspection and enforcement action concerning foreign vessels' compliance with applicable maritime safety and environmental requirements. The Coast Guard's regulatory authority was illustrated in a different context by the detention of the foreign-flagged MSC Poesia in Miami.
A marine-casualty investigation serves a separate purpose. It seeks to establish what occurred, identify contributing circumstances, assess possible regulatory violations, and inform measures intended to prevent similar accidents. Although findings may reveal inspection or compliance issues, an investigation is not equivalent to a routine port-state-control examination.
American Heritage presents a different flag-state relationship. American Cruise Lines describes its fleet as entirely U.S.-flagged. The riverboat's registration places its applicable domestic certification and inspection obligations within the American regulatory system. Its U.S. flag does not predetermine the responsibility of either vessel for the collision.
The governing legal framework is consequently not a contest between two exclusive national jurisdictions. The United States has direct territorial and regulatory authority over the incident, while the Marshall Islands retains responsibilities arising from the tanker's registration. Questions of private compensation will be determined under the applicable substantive and procedural law, rather than resolved simply by identifying each vessel's flag.
3. Navigation Rules on the Lower Mississippi River
The collision occurred in a heavily used commercial waterway where large oceangoing vessels, inland commercial traffic, passenger vessels, and port operations coexist. The applicable navigation requirements must be identified according to the location of the encounter, not merely the international character of the tanker.
The U.S. Inland Navigation Rules govern vessel conduct within their designated geographical scope. On the Lower Mississippi River, these rules provide the principal standards for matters such as lookout, safe speed, assessment of collision risk, and action to avoid an accident. Their operation must be distinguished from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, commonly known as COLREGs, which apply in their own designated waters.
The presence of a stationary riverboat does not eliminate the need to examine the surrounding circumstances. Current, visibility, traffic density, the tanker's maneuvering characteristics, the location of the berth, and the movement of other vessels may all affect what reasonably prudent navigation required at the time.
3.1 Lookout, Safe Speed, and Avoiding Action
Inland Rule 5 requires vessels to maintain a proper lookout appropriate to the prevailing circumstances. The obligation is intended to provide a full assessment of the situation and the risk of collision through available means, including sight, hearing, and suitable navigational equipment.
Inland Rule 6 requires navigation at a safe speed. The appropriate speed is not determined by a universal numerical limit. It depends on factors such as visibility, traffic conditions, maneuverability, background lighting, wind, current, and the distance necessary to stop or take effective avoiding action.
Rule 8 addresses action to avoid collision. Where circumstances permit, avoiding action must be taken in sufficient time and must be substantial enough to achieve the intended result. The rules also preserve the broader obligation of prudent seamanship, including consideration of special circumstances that may require departure from an otherwise applicable navigation rule to avoid immediate danger.
Whether Atlantic Asphalt complied with these obligations cannot be determined from the impact alone. Investigators would need evidence of the tanker's course, speed, bridge communications, equipment performance, and the time available to respond. The fact that American Heritage was moored is legally important, but it does not replace an examination of the tanker's actual navigation.
3.2 Mississippi River Pilotage and Vessel Traffic Service
Pilotage is a particularly relevant aspect of the incident because Atlantic Asphalt was a large foreign-flagged commercial vessel navigating the Lower Mississippi River. The Coast Guard's vessel-agent guidance states that Louisiana requires vessels exceeding 100 gross tons to take a pilot while transiting the Lower Mississippi River. At 14,485 gross tons, Atlantic Asphalt substantially exceeded that threshold.
The legal requirement does not establish who was directing the tanker's navigation at the moment of impact. The presence of an appropriately licensed pilot, any transfer of navigational conduct, and communications between the pilot and bridge team would have to be established from the relevant records. A pilot's involvement would not automatically eliminate the responsibilities of the master or other personnel.
The Coast Guard operates the Lower Mississippi River Vessel Traffic Service under applicable federal regulations. Its functions include monitoring vessel movements and coordinating traffic in circumstances requiring particular attention to navigational safety. Certain operating areas and conditions carry additional reporting or movement requirements.
Vessel Traffic Service records may help reconstruct the tanker's movements and communications before the collision. Whether any specific reporting obligation or traffic direction was breached depends on the vessel's precise location, operating conditions, and the requirements in force at that time.
4. The Coast Guard Investigation and the Cause of the Collision
The Coast Guard is the principal federal authority responsible for investigating reportable marine casualties within its jurisdiction. Title 46 of the United States Code provides for investigations into relevant incidents involving vessels, including foreign vessels in U.S. navigable waters. A serious collision causing substantial damage and injuries raises questions that fall directly within the Coast Guard's maritime-safety responsibilities.
The investigation may address the vessels' navigation, their physical condition, applicable operating procedures, and the actions of personnel involved. Documentary and electronic evidence can be particularly important. Vessel tracking information, voyage data, bridge communications, machinery records, and witness testimony may establish circumstances that are not apparent from images of the impact.
The immediate cause should be distinguished from contributing conditions. A loss of propulsion, steering difficulty, failure to maintain a proper lookout, inadequate communications, or an unsuccessful maneuver could each have legal significance if supported by evidence. None has been established as the cause of this collision in the contemporaneous official information considered here.
The National Transportation Safety Board may become involved in certain marine-casualty investigations under its governing authority and arrangements with the Coast Guard. Its participation in this particular casualty should not be assumed without confirmation. The possible involvement of more than one investigative institution does not mean that their statutory responsibilities or investigative purposes are identical.
A Coast Guard investigation also differs from a civil proceeding for damages. The investigation addresses maritime safety and regulatory questions, while civil litigation determines particular legal claims and defenses. These functions reflect the broader distinction between public enforcement jurisdiction and judicial determination of private rights.
Congress has imposed special restrictions on the use of Coast Guard marine-casualty investigation reports. Under 46 U.S.C. § 6308, reports prepared under § 6301 are generally inadmissible and protected from discovery in civil and administrative proceedings, subject to the statutory exceptions, including certain proceedings conducted by the United States. That protection does not prevent parties from independently obtaining otherwise admissible evidence concerning the accident.
An investigative finding may eventually clarify what caused the tanker to strike the riverboat. Until then, the legal analysis must distinguish the established sequence of events from possible explanations. The available evidence supports the fact of the allision, the emergency response, and the resulting damage; it does not establish the negligence of a particular person or company.
5. Maritime Fault When a Tanker Strikes a Moored Vessel
American admiralty law has long recognized that an accident involving a moving vessel and a stationary vessel presents a distinct evidentiary situation. Lawyers generally use the term allision for a moving vessel's contact with a stationary object or vessel, reserving collision for encounters between vessels that are both moving.
The distinction is relevant because a vessel that is properly moored ordinarily presents a fixed navigational hazard that an approaching vessel should be able to identify and avoid. Nevertheless, maritime fault cannot be resolved solely from the terminology used to describe the event.
American courts assess the conduct of the parties in light of applicable navigation requirements, reasonable maritime practice, the circumstances of the accident, and the causal relationship between conduct and damage. Special evidentiary presumptions may assist that assessment without replacing it.
5.1 The Oregon Presumption and Maritime Negligence
In The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed responsibility arising from a moving vessel's contact with a stationary object. The decision is associated with a rebuttable presumption of fault against the moving vessel in an allision.
The presumption reflects an ordinary navigational expectation: a vessel underway should generally be capable of avoiding a stationary object when navigated with appropriate care. The party invoking the presumption must establish the circumstances necessary for its application, including the relevant character of the impact.
The moving vessel may rebut the presumption by establishing legally sufficient circumstances showing that the allision did not result from its fault. The presumption concerns fault; it does not independently establish every element of causation, the full amount of damages, or the ultimate distribution of responsibility among all parties.
Applied to the New Orleans incident, the reported movement of Atlantic Asphalt into the docked American Heritage makes the doctrine potentially significant. Its application in any proceeding would depend on the evidence presented and the court's findings concerning the vessels' positions and conduct. No judicial determination of fault has been reported.
5.2 Statutory Violations and Comparative Responsibility
A separate maritime presumption arises from The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125 (1873). When a vessel violates a statutory navigation requirement intended to prevent the type of casualty involved, the rule imposes a demanding burden concerning whether that violation could have contributed to the accident.
The Pennsylvania rule requires an actual, relevant violation. An allegation that a vessel was traveling too fast, failed to maintain a lookout, or disregarded a traffic direction is insufficient without supporting evidence. The rule concerns the causal significance of an established breach, rather than permitting a court to invent one from the seriousness of the result.
American maritime law also recognizes comparative fault. In United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (1975), the Supreme Court adopted allocation of property-damage responsibility according to comparative fault where the parties' contributing responsibility can be measured. Liability may consequently reflect the conduct of more than one legally responsible party.
The distinction between territorial jurisdiction and individual responsibility also appears in other maritime incidents. The Mein Schiff 3 collision analysis concerns the authority to investigate and potentially prosecute conduct associated with an accident in German waters. The New Orleans case principally raises American admiralty questions concerning an allision, possible negligence, and civil compensation.
6. Who Could Be Liable for Injuries and Damage?
The persons and entities potentially exposed to civil claims cannot be identified conclusively from the vessels' names alone. Relevant defendants may include a vessel's legal owner, an operator, an employer, or another party whose actionable conduct contributed to the accident. Their responsibility depends on the applicable cause of action and established facts.
Different claims may arise from the same incident. Passengers may seek compensation for personal injuries, vessel interests may seek recovery for physical damage, and other parties may assert losses arising from interruption of port or commercial operations. Each category has its own legal requirements.
The identification of a defendant also requires attention to corporate and contractual arrangements. A company's appearance in a vessel database does not necessarily establish that it operated the ship, employed the crew, controlled the relevant activity, or bears liability for a particular injury.
6.1 Passenger Injuries and Crew Members' Remedies
Passengers injured in a maritime casualty may have claims based on negligence and other applicable maritime duties. In Kermarec v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959), the Supreme Court articulated a maritime duty of reasonable care under the circumstances toward persons lawfully aboard a vessel.
For American Heritage passengers, the legal inquiry may concern both the actions of the striking tanker and the duties owed by the passenger-vessel interests. These are distinct questions. A collision caused by another vessel does not automatically establish negligence by the riverboat operator, although the response to an emergency and other relevant conduct may require examination.
A passenger seeking damages would generally need to establish an applicable duty, a breach, causation, and legally compensable loss. The circumstances of the rescue, injuries sustained, and medical evidence would become significant in evaluating individual claims. The number of people taken to hospital does not establish the value or merits of any particular claim.
Crew members may have different remedies. The Jones Act, codified at 46 U.S.C. § 30104, provides a negligence-based remedy for qualifying seamen against their employers. Whether an individual qualifies as a seaman depends on the legal criteria governing that status, including the person's employment relationship and connection to a vessel in navigation.
The description of someone as a crew member is not, by itself, sufficient to resolve Jones Act eligibility. Other maritime remedies may also be relevant to qualifying maritime employees, depending on their status and the facts of the injury.
6.2 Vessel Damage and Other Maritime Claims
The damage to American Heritage may generate substantial claims involving the vessel itself, equipment, repairs, salvage, and related losses. The visible severity of the casualty does not establish the full economic loss, which would require technical assessment and supporting financial evidence.
The tanker interests may likewise have claims or defenses depending on the circumstances. Maritime litigation can involve counterclaims and allegations of comparative responsibility, even where the initial physical event appears straightforward. A court would need to determine which acts or omissions contributed to the resulting loss.
Claims for purely economic loss require particular care. In Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927), the Supreme Court addressed limitations on recovery for economic losses arising from interference with property in which the claimant lacked the necessary proprietary interest. The resulting maritime doctrine does not mean that every business loss following a collision is automatically unrecoverable.
A claimant whose own property suffered physical damage may occupy a different legal position from a business that suffered only indirect commercial disruption. The distinction could become relevant if port operations, services, or other commercial activities were affected by the casualty.
7. Shipowner Limitation of Liability and Insurance
One of the most consequential features of American maritime law is the statutory possibility of limiting a vessel owner's liability following certain marine casualties. The governing provisions appear in Chapter 305 of Title 46 of the United States Code.
Under 46 U.S.C. § 30523, an owner may seek to limit qualifying liability to the value of the vessel and pending freight where the statutory conditions are satisfied, including the absence of the owner's privity or knowledge. The provision does not automatically release an owner from responsibility, and the absence of privity or knowledge is often central to the dispute.
The statute also contains exclusions and special rules. The 2022 amendments created an exception for defined covered small passenger vessels. Under § 30501, a qualifying small passenger vessel on an overnight domestic voyage must carry no more than 49 passengers. The separate 150-passenger threshold applies to voyages that are not overnight domestic voyages.
The reported presence of approximately 129 passengers aboard American Heritage during a multiday domestic cruise means the vessel would not satisfy the 49-passenger threshold for an overnight domestic voyage. The reported 2015 construction date also places it outside the separate statutory inclusion for certain wooden vessels constructed before March 11, 1996. Its 150-guest capacity does not establish eligibility for the exemption.
Another statutory distinction concerns personal injuries. Section 30524 provides a special minimum liability calculation for certain seagoing vessels but expressly excludes tank vessels, among other vessel categories. It would be inaccurate to apply that calculation automatically to Atlantic Asphalt. Any application to another vessel would require satisfaction of the section's own requirements.
The general limitation regime is also subject to statutory exceptions. Under 46 U.S.C. § 30102, specified liabilities for passenger injuries or baggage damage arising from designated vessel-safety violations or known defects in a vessel's steaming apparatus or hull are not subject to limitation under Chapter 305. Nothing presently establishes that those conditions were met aboard American Heritage.
Passenger tickets and carriage contracts may raise additional questions. Section 30527 prohibits specified contractual provisions limiting liability for personal injury or death caused by negligence or fault on covered passenger transportation. Separate provisions govern permissible notice and filing requirements in the circumstances to which they apply. The actual ticket terms and statutory scope would have to be examined before drawing conclusions about any individual passenger's claim.
Insurance is relevant but cannot substitute for the liability inquiry. Gard's public record identifies a P&I entry associated with Atlantic Asphalt and lists several maritime certificates. That establishes the existence of recorded insurance arrangements and documentation; it does not determine the response of the relevant policy to particular claims, the availability of defenses, or the amount ultimately recoverable.
8. Pollution Risks and International Tanker Liability
The involvement of an asphalt tanker raises an environmental question separate from the immediate passenger emergency. Asphalt and bitumen are petroleum-derived products, but the vessel's recorded type does not establish what cargo it was carrying when the collision occurred. Nor does the collision itself establish that oil or another substance entered the Mississippi River.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides an important American statutory framework. Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, specified responsibilities may arise when oil is discharged, or a substantial threat of discharge exists, into navigable waters or other waters covered by the statute. The applicable definition of oil, the circumstances of any release, and the identity of a responsible party would need to be established.
The tanker also operates within a system of international maritime environmental requirements, including relevant provisions of MARPOL and associated domestic implementation. Those requirements may concern vessel equipment, operational procedures, pollution prevention, and reporting. Their application to a particular casualty requires identification of the relevant obligation and factual circumstances.
The 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage provides a specialized compensation regime among its contracting states. The Marshall Islands is a party, and Gard lists CLC 1992-related documentation for Atlantic Asphalt. The United States, however, is not a party to the 1992 regime. The existence of the tanker's certificate does not make that convention the governing law for passenger injuries or ordinary collision damage arising in New Orleans.
The distinction reflects a broader principle of international environmental law: a vessel may be subject to several overlapping regulatory arrangements, while particular compensation rules operate only within their legal and geographical scope. Unless evidence establishes a discharge or substantial threat of discharge, pollution liability remains a conditional issue rather than an established consequence of the crash.
Conclusion
The November 13, 2026, collision between Atlantic Asphalt and American Heritage was a serious maritime casualty within U.S. inland waters. The tanker struck a docked passenger riverboat, causing extensive damage and a major rescue operation. Subsequent reporting indicated that everyone aboard had been accounted for and that 32 people had been taken to local hospitals. The immediate cause of the collision had not been established in the contemporaneous official information.
American law supplies the principal rules governing navigation, investigation, maritime negligence, personal-injury claims, and potential limitation of shipowner liability. The tanker's Marshall Islands registration remains relevant to flag-state oversight and maritime documentation but does not displace American authority on the Mississippi River. Established admiralty doctrines concerning allisions and statutory navigation violations may become important if civil proceedings follow.
Responsibility ultimately depends on evidence rather than the severity of the impact alone. The positions of the vessels, navigation and pilotage records, mechanical condition, bridge communications, and actions of those involved will determine whether particular legal duties were breached and whether those breaches caused compensable losses. Until those circumstances are established, the distinction between a confirmed maritime casualty and a finding of legal fault remains decisive.
References
American Cruise Lines (2026) ‘American Cruise Lines Names 2 More New U.S. Riverboats: American Beauty & American Rhapsody’, 13 August [online]. Available at: https://www.americancruiselines.com/media/american-cruise-lines-names-2-more-new-us-riverboats-american-beauty-american-rhapsody (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
American Cruise Lines (n.d.) ‘American Heritage Paddlewheeler | Mississippi River Cruise Ship’ [online]. Available at: https://www.americancruiselines.com/ships/paddlewheeler-cruise-ships/american-heritage (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Associated Press (2026) ‘Rescues are underway in New Orleans after a tanker hits a river cruise boat on the Mississippi River’, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/757bed7a70ceb72f0d7140143fe2a764 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Brasted, C. and Lotz, A. (2026) ‘Mississippi River cruise crash has no fatalities, critical injuries’, Axios, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://www.axios.com/2026/11/13/new-orleans-cruise-ship-tanker-strike (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972) Adopted 20 October 1972, entered into force 15 July 1977 [online]. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/colreg.aspx (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Dennis, B. (2026) ‘Tanker strikes cruise ship in New Orleans, sending passengers into river’, The Washington Post, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/11/13/tanker-collides-with-cruise-ship-new-orleans-sending-passengers-into-river/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Gard (n.d.) ‘Atlantic Asphalt’, vessel registration and insurance record [online]. Available at: https://gard.no/vessels/71361/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) Adopted 2 November 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, adopted 17 February 1978; entered into force 2 October 1983 [online]. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-%28marpol%29.aspx (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
International Maritime Organization (2026) Status of IMO Treaties. London: International Maritime Organization, 26 August [online]. Available at: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Status%202026.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
International Maritime Organization (n.d.) ‘International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC)’ [online]. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-on-civil-liability-for-oil-pollution-damage-%28clc%29.aspx (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
National Transportation Safety Board and United States Coast Guard (2021) Memorandum of Understanding Between the National Transportation Safety Board and the United States Coast Guard, 17 June [online]. Available at: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/gc/Documents/Signed%20USCG%20NTSB%20MOU%20June%2017%202021.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Freighter collides with cruise ship in New Orleans, passengers in the water’, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/freighter-collides-with-cruise-ship-new-orleans-passengers-water-2026-11-13/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) Adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Coast Guard (n.d.) ‘Amalgamated Navigation Rules: International and U.S. Inland’ [online]. Available at: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/navigation-rules-amalgamated (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Coast Guard (n.d.) ‘Sector New Orleans: Vessel Agent Handbook’ [online]. Available at: https://www.atlanticarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Heartland-District/Units/Sector-New-Orleans/Vessel-Agent-Handbook/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 33, §2701, ‘Definitions’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t33/s2701/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 33, §2702, ‘Elements of liability’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t33/s2702/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30102, ‘Liability to passengers’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30102/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30104, ‘Personal injury to or death of seamen’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30104/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30501, ‘Definitions’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30501/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30523, ‘General limit of liability’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30523/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30524, ‘Limit of liability for personal injury or death’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30524/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30526, ‘Provisions requiring notice of claim or limiting time for bringing action’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30526/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §30527, ‘Provisions limiting liability for personal injury or death’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s30527/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §6301, ‘Investigation of marine casualties’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s6301/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Code (2026) Title 46, §6308, ‘Information barred in legal proceedings’ [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/t46/s6308/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1873) The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 125 [online]. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/86/125/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1895) The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 [online]. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/186/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1927) Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 [online]. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/275/303/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1959) Kermarec v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 [online]. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/625/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1975) United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397, judgment of 19 May 1975 [online]. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/397/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).