04/02/2026
“Schuld van het Schip”: 🚢 The Night the Lights Were On — But the Radar Wasn’t
An Aruba Collision Explained
February 2022.
Warm Caribbean waters.
Good weather.
Clear visibility.
A sleek catamaran, part of an international world rally, lies calmly at anchor just off the coast of Aruba. Its crew has arrived that afternoon. Night falls. Anchor light on. Nothing unusual.
Then, suddenly—
impact.
A much larger wooden tour ship, operated by Pelican Adventures N.V., plows straight into the anchored catamaran.
This case asks a simple question with a very legal answer:
Who pays when a moving ship hits a stationary, properly lit one?
The players
Let’s meet the cast.
The catamaran owners
[Eiseres] and [Eiser]
Owners of [catamaran 1]
Participants in a global sailing rally lasting years
The insurer
Helvetia Assurances S.A.
Paid out €82,500 for the damage
Steps into the owners’ shoes through subrogation
The defendants
Pelican Adventures N.V. – owner of the tour vessel [zeeschip]
[Gedaagde] – Pelican’s long-time captain
Pelican’s ship runs daily snorkel and sunset dinner trips.
Same route.
Same waters.
For years.
What happened that night
On 11 February 2022, after dark:
The catamaran sat at anchor, not moving
The weather was calm
Visibility was good
Crew members were onboard
Pelican’s ship returned toward its marina.
The captain later admitted something crucial to the Coast Guard:
He did not expect anchored sailboats there
He did not see the catamaran
And—most importantly—
“It was my fault.”
The collision caused serious structural damage.
A Joint Survey Report, agreed to by experts from both sides, later confirmed which parts had to be replaced.
The lawsuit, in plain terms
The owners and the insurer sued.
They asked the court to declare:
Pelican is liable
The captain is also personally liable
Pelican must pay:
€82,500 to Helvetia
€84,008.94 to the owners
Plus interest and future damages
Pelican and the captain said:
Not our fault.
Pelican’s defense — and why it mattered
Pelican raised several arguments. All failed.
Let’s break them down.
❌ “The catamaran didn’t report to the harbor master”
True.
But irrelevant.
Pelican argued that if the catamaran had checked in, authorities might have sent it elsewhere.
The court wasn’t impressed.
“Might have” is speculation
No proof from the harbor master
No document showing anchoring there was unsafe
Law doesn’t work on hypotheticals.
❌ “This is our daily route”
Also true.
Still irrelevant.
There is no legal rule saying:
“If a ship sails somewhere every day, everyone else must stay out of its way.”
Anchoring rights don’t disappear because a tour boat runs on autopilot—legally or mentally.
❌ “The catamaran created a dangerous situation”
Pelican tried the kelderluik argument (a Dutch legal doctrine about dangerous situations).
It backfired.
Why?
Because the catamaran:
Was stationary
Was visible
Was properly lit
Caused no damage to Pelican’s ship
Danger doesn’t come from standing still and following the rules.
❌ “The catamaran had no anchor light”
This was the most important factual dispute.
Maritime law requires an anchored vessel to show:
One all-round white light
Not more.
Not less.
Pelican claimed the light was off.
But another rally captain testified:
“Both our anchor lights were clearly on that night.”
The court believed him.
Pelican had no credible evidence to the contrary.
The elephant on the bridge: missing navigation equipment
Here’s where Pelican’s case truly collapsed.
Their ship had no radar.
No AIS.
No modern positioning aids.
That matters—a lot.
Why?
Because under international maritime rules:
A vessel of about 35 meters must have radar and AIS
Even smaller ships must have adequate navigation equipment
Aruba follows these rules
Pelican’s ship had none of it.
The court said, plainly:
If this ship had proper equipment,
this collision likely never would have happened.
That single fact tipped the scales.
“But the captain said it was his fault” — does that count?
Not automatically.
Under shipping law:
A captain has limited authority
He cannot legally admit liability on behalf of the owner
Only the shipowner can do that
So the statement didn’t bind Pelican.
But it didn’t help them either.
Who is legally responsible — the ship or the captain?
This matters more than you think.
Maritime law prefers:
Ship liability
Owner responsibility
Insurance coverage
Personal liability of captains is the exception.
The court asked:
Why sue the captain personally
when the ship is insured
and the real fault lies with the owner’s choices?
Pelican, not the captain, failed to equip the ship properly.
That failure outweighed everything else.
The money fight
Pelican also attacked the repair costs.
They argued:
Repairs weren’t urgent
Cheaper options existed
The owners overreacted
The court disagreed.
Why?
Because the Joint Survey Report—signed by experts on both sides—said:
Temporary and permanent repairs in Aruba
were the most cost-effective option.
Pelican never produced a competing expert report.
General complaints don’t beat technical evidence.
⚖️ The verdict (here it is)
The court ruled:
✔ Pelican Adventures N.V. is liable
Because:
The ship lacked mandatory navigation equipment
The crew failed to detect a properly lit, anchored vessel
The collision was entirely avoidable
❌ The captain is not personally liable
Because:
Maritime law prioritizes shipowner liability
Pelican bore the greater fault
The ship was insured
💰 What Pelican must pay
Pelican is ordered to pay:
€82,500 to Helvetia
€84,008.94 to the owners
Legal interest from 11 February 2022
Future damages, to be calculated later
All main legal costs
The judgment is immediately enforceable.
This case wasn’t about paperwork.
Or routes.
Or expectations.
It was about one simple failure:
A commercial ship went to sea without the equipment required to see what was right in front of it.
When a moving vessel hits a stationary, properly lit one under calm conditions, the law demands a very strong explanation.
Pelican didn’t have one.
And the sea—legally speaking—does not forgive shortcuts.
