| dc.description.abstract | March 2nd, 2012. A Committee was appointed by Royal Decree to conduct a review of the Norwegian pilot service and regulations. The Committee was composed by various interest groups involved with the pilot service, and was headed by Bjørn Solbakken, Chief Justice of Gulating Court of Appeal. One of the topics that were discussed by the Committee was the liability for the Norwegian State pilots. In 1969 the Tort Liability Act (Skl.) was passed with a provision, § 2-1, which imposed an objective liability for an employer. This was the first clear provision to regulate employer liability for both public and private entities. In 1989 a new Pilotage Act was passed. This Act contained an exception rule, the Pilotage Act § 24, which legislated that a State pilot, with regard to Skl. § 2-1, is considered to be in the service of a ship during pilotage. The general employer liability stipulated in Skl. § 2-1 is thus transferred from the State to the shipowner during pilotage. The consequence of the exception rule is that the State, as the pilots employer, is exempt from liability when a State pilot negligently or intentionally causes damage during pilotage. In the preparatory works of the Pilotage Act (Ot.prp.nr.43 (1988-1989)) the Ministry of Justice claimed that § 24 would entail an enactment of legal practice. The Ministry referred to a Supreme Court case from 1963, Rt.1963.622 Prince Charles, where a shipowner was held liable when two State pilots negligently caused damage during pilotage. The main legal basis for the Pilotage Act § 24 therefore originates from 1963; a time before the Tort Liability Act and the general employer liability rule. The Norwegian Shipowners Association (NSA), which represents the main users of the pilot service, believes that it is time to change the current state of law. It is not reasonable that the shipowners bear the full liability for damages caused by the State pilots negligence in service. The NSA claims that the Pilotage Act § 24 is outdated and lacks relevance today, and that the employer liability for the State pilots does not harmonize with the State s employer liability in other areas of law. According to the NSA, a thorough review of the Pilotage Act § 24 is necessary. A review should also be done in conjunction with the Mari-time Code (MC) § 151, which imposes a vicarious liability for a reder (referred to as shipowner in the following discussions). MC § 151 takes the shipowner s liability one-step further than the general employer liability stipulated in Skl. § 2-1. MC § 151 sets no requirements as to a direct employment relationship between the shipowner and the servant for the shipowner to be liable; the only requirement is that work is performed in the service of the ship. The consequence of this provision is that a shipowner in certain situations will be liable for the work performed by someone else employees, e.g. when a pilot, employed by the State, performs work in the service of the ship. June 10th, 2013. The Committee submitted its Norwegian Official Report (NOU) 2013:8 Med los på sjøsikkerhet , office translation With a pilot on maritime safety . The Committee proposed in section 14.2.4.2 that a review of the liability for State pilots should be conducted. April 11th, 2014. The Ministry of Transport and Communication released its draft resolutions and bills , 65 L (2013–2014). The Ministry proposed to retain the current state of law without conducting a thorough analysis of the topic. The objective of this dissertation is to discuss whether there are grounds to consider a modification of the current state of law. The discussion will be based on a presentation of the rules governing the liability for the State pilots and a presentation of the rationale that underlies the current state of the law. | eng |