[blueunicorn6]

Look at the story from the British newspaper.

The cargo ship was making some pretty erratic moves just prior to the collision.

The photos also show that this wasn’t a “T-Bone” crash. I would call it a “glancing” crash.

[TXnMA]

IIRC, the vessel on the right, and the slower, less maneuverable vessel (both of which fit the container ship) has the right-of-way.

Based on the above, it would appear that the Fitzgerald was in the wrong, and crossed in front of the vessel with the right-of-way.

~~~~~~~~~~~

However...

The container ship was not just plodding steadily along on its planned course from Nagoya to Tokyo:

In fact, the maneuvering of the ACX Crystal was so bizarre as to indicate a deliberate collision maneuver:

From the location and direction of the damage, the Fitzgerald was sailing smoothly northeastward toward Yokosuka, — and landward of the ACX Crystal — when the ACX Crystal rammed it — traveling on a directly landward course.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is difficult to imagine a huge container ship making two sharp reversals of course, and hard , sharp turn to port — without deliberate intent to ram.

[Robe]

Container ship course changes prior to the impact...looks like he was lost or trying to find the correct approach

[AndyJackson]

The cargo ship was making some pretty erratic moves just prior to the collision.

If it was maneuvering erratically then it is at fault.

But liability under international law is not the issue here. The officers of the Fitzgerald have a duty to the taxpayers to preserve a fighting asset of the U.S. Navy and to operate prudently. When another vessel is sailing erratically, the prudent thing is to steer clear.