'At present, expert reports in maritime cases are made by former commanders and naval engineers. However, in future, if and when MASS will suffer a loss, the main Software engineers could be experts." It has taken over the 2022-2023 president of the Association of Average Adjusters, Sir Nigel Teare, in his annual address to the Assembly of the members, held in recent days in London, which examined the effects of the introduction of autonomous navigation and, therefore, the introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships into the fleets (MASS). Teare, who passed the baton of the presidency 2023-2024 to the German Burkhard Fischer, specified that that of the Pre-eminent role of software engineers in claims Seafarers would find it "a depressing prospect; but - ha pointed out - younger minds may not be All right.'

In his speech to the Association of Damage Adjusters Maritime, Teare focused on the planning of the voyage and its potential application to vessels controlled by operators on the ground or from computers on board. Recalling that the International Maritime Organization, with commendable foresight, is following the development of autonomous ships, evaluating to what extent point to regulatory regimes such as Solas and collision regulations can be applied to these ships, with the aim of having a non-mandatory code for this type of ship by 2024 and a mandatory code in effect by January 2028, Teare has detected that, since there is no reason why MASSES should not have a Passage Plan, these navigation plans "could in future be produced by a computer. And - he wondered - if the reason why a Passage Plan is inaccurate lies in a defect in the software purchased by the shipowner?' Teare has Recalling that the distinguished Judge Sir Richard Aikens 'has suggested that in such a case a shipowner could claim not to have committed no breach of due diligence because the defect occurred when the ship was not under its control or, as was pointed out in one case, "in the its orbit". This, I dare say - Teare specified - That seems to be correct. The need for the ship to be in the availability of the shipowner before the shipowner is subject the due diligence obligation under the Hague Rules (the Protocol of 1924 on Risk Sharing among Shipowners and the owners of the cargo) was recognized by Lord Hamblen to the Supreme Court in the case of CMA CGM Libra. Therefore, the focus will be on the question whether the shipowner, Once he got hold of the software, he should have realized himself I account, through a careful and qualified analysis of the software, that It was not in a fit for purpose. If his analysis was was negligent, there would have been a failure to exercise due diligence. I suspect - Teare noted - that it will be difficult establish negligence of this nature'.

"Where the captain on board or the operator on the ground - continued Teare - acts negligently in command of the ship, this It would amount to negligent navigation. But what if the error Is it committed by a computer? If this error is the result of a defect in the software, the automated vessel would be presumably considered unsuitable for navigation. One more Volta, there would be no breach of due diligence by of the shipowner unless the shipowner has been able and should detect the error before the start of the trip. But if the error is The result of an artificial intelligence error of the computer, then this could very well be considered careless browsing by the computer just as if had it been a mistake made by the officer on watch. Therefore- observed Teare envisaging a future that is not hoped for - you can provide for the use of an appraisal by engineers of the software on the nature of the defect and whether the defect could and should reasonably be identified by the shipowner, or it was simply an error of the artificial computer intelligence'.