Container collapses can occur at sea as a result of a number of factors such as inadequate, deficient or improper securing, improper stowage configuration, excessive stability, the failure of the vessel to assess storm movement or to take action in deteriorating weather. This list is not comprehensive.

A secondary factor which is sometimes added to the melting pot as an issue is the declared weights of the containers by shippers which are loaded on board.

  1. The weight issue is highlighted in various investigations that have been carried out by the British Marine Accident Investigation Board ("MAIB") into incidences involving container ships in British and foreign waters in the last few years. One of the most high profile of these has been their investigation of the MSC Napoli in 2007 where heavy seas buckled the vessel just forward of the engine room. This resulted in the vessel being blown ashore and being broken in half. The buckling strength of the engine room was blamed for the incident. As an aside, the MAIB did however conclude that the audit of the containers removed from the MSC Napoli, compared to the dead load calculated, indicated that the declared weights of many of the containers carried on the vessel were inaccurate.
  2. That report and a previous one on an incident on the "Annabella" in the Baltic sea led to the International Chamber of Shipping and the World Shipping Council to issue the "Safe Transport of Containers by Sea – Guidelines Practices". That document highlights the importance of not overloading a container. It also "encourages" terminal operators to verify the weights of incoming containers before they are loaded.
  3. In January 2010 the MAIB investigated the loss of 18 containers from the 910 TEU "Husky Racer" whilst she was berthed in Bremerhaven. The issue of weighing the containers was also highlighted in that report. The MAIB have said that discrepancies in weights in the industry were widespread and were caused by the fact that many packers and shippers simply did not have the facilities to weigh containers on their premises. In addition, they said they thought shippers deliberately under declared weights to either minimise import taxes or to keep their declared weights within the rail/road limits.

The debate over the obligations of carriers and terminal operators to weigh containers before loading and therefore to check the weights declared by shippers is to come under the spotlight in future at a conference taking place in London. Under the Rotterdam Rules it is intended that there be a strict and unlimited liability imposed on a shipper for any inaccurate information given, which results in the issuance of transport documents including information on the weight of goods, which are later found to be incorrect. This has no doubt encouraged a re-visit to some of the issues surrounding the weights declared by shippers.

In an "ideal world" where containers arrive in good time at a port and have been booked in advance, this may be possible. However, it is often the case that a carrier has a container presented late in the day and has very little opportunity to examine or check container weights. It is not clear why a terminal operator should be in any better position. In addition, as a consequence of that a vessel's stowage plan is consistently under review. When this issue was last looked at in depth in 2007 there was resistance from the terminal operators becoming embroiled in the issue. In 2010 there seems to be a view that the equipment required for weight testing is cheaper than a few years ago and that, as a result, makes testing a container's weight before loading a viable proposition.

The Rotterdam Rules are currently being examined by the USA legislature. If approved, the Rules will be incorporated into USA law contracts. That step in itself may put further pressure on the debate.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.