{"id":2655,"date":"2013-05-30T18:11:37","date_gmt":"2013-05-31T02:11:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/belize-v-ms-westerhaven-schiffahrts-et-al-claim-no-45-2009-20100426-supreme-court-belize-judgment\/"},"modified":"2024-01-12T13:45:15","modified_gmt":"2024-01-12T21:45:15","slug":"belize-v-ms-westerhaven-schiffahrts-et-al-claim-no-45-2009-20100426-supreme-court-belize-judgment","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/resource\/belize-v-ms-westerhaven-schiffahrts-et-al-claim-no-45-2009-20100426-supreme-court-belize-judgment","title":{"rendered":"Belice contra MS Westerhaven Schiffahrts et al., Reclamaci\u00f3n No. 45 de 2009 (26.04.2010) (Tribunal Supremo de Belice) (Sentencia) (Da\u00f1os por encallamiento de un barco en un arrecife)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Nota: El Tribunal de Apelaciones de Belice posteriormente limit\u00f3 la responsabilidad de los propietarios del MS Westerhaven bas\u00e1ndose en la aplicaci\u00f3n del Convenio sobre limitaci\u00f3n de responsabilidad en reclamaciones mar\u00edtimas (Convenio LLMC). Aunque el tribunal inferior determin\u00f3 que la responsabilidad de los propietarios del buque era de 11.510.000 BZ$, el Tribunal de Apelaciones determin\u00f3 que el Convenio limitaba la responsabilidad a 2.009.347 US$ (seg\u00fan el tama\u00f1o del buque en cuesti\u00f3n).<\/p>\n<p>Ver: <a href=\"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/resource\/ms-westerhaven-schiffahrts-et-al-v-attorney-general-belize-civil-appeal-19-2010-16-may-2011-court\/\">https:\/\/elaw.org\/resource\/ms-westerhaven-schiffahrts-et-al-v-attorney-general-belize-civil-appeal-19-2010-16-may-2011-court<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Note &#8211; The Court of Appeal of Belize later limited the liability of the owners of the MS Westerhaven based on application of the Convention on Limitation of Liability in Maritime Claims (LLMC Convention) .\u00a0 Although the lower court found the ship owners\u2019 liability to be BZ$11,510,000, the Court of Appeals found that the Convention [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[159,44],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30100],"region":[567,534],"class_list":["post-2655","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-coral-reefs","resource-topic-marine-and-coastal","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-caribbean","region-belize","region-central-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/2655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=2655"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=2655"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=2655"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=2655"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=2655"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}