# Are sunken ships still owned by anyone a hundred years later? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 22, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975 "2007-01-22T17:41:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/1 "2007-01-22T17:41:46Z")
I know ancient shipwrecks are controlled and disputed by governments. But are regular cargo ships still considered owned by the original companies or their insurance companies? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/2 "2007-01-22T18:00:58Z")
IIRC, if ships are abandoned, they are fair game for salvagers. If the salvager saves the ship or any part of its cargo, they are entitled to compensation, either from the ship’s owners or the insurance company. This is negotiated, but if there’s an impasse, arbitration goes into effect. ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/3 "2007-01-22T18:07:20Z")
[http://www.njscuba.net/artifacts/misc\_salvage\_law.html](http://www.njscuba.net/artifacts/misc_salvage_law.html) ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/4 "2007-01-22T18:17:56Z")
Certain vessels may be declared as war graves. It depends partly upon the nationality of the jurisdiction within which it sinks. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/5 "2007-01-22T18:47:39Z")
Oddly enough, I’ve written a staff report that touches on this issue. At least under U.S. law, the issue is whether the property is abandoned. If it is abandoned (this can’t happen with military vessels, because there’s a statute) then the finder gets it. If not, the finder gets compensation for salvage. The leading case is _Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co._, 974 F. 2d 450 (4th Cir. 1992): > [@](#): > > There are only a handful of cases which [\*\*26] have applied the law of finds, all of which fit into two categories. First, there are cases where owners have expressly and publicly abandoned their property. See, e.g., Nunley, 863 F.2d at 1199; State ex rel. Ervin v. Massachusetts Co., 95 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 881 (1957); Nippon Shosen Kaisha, K.K. v. United States, 238 F. Supp. 55 (N.D. Cal. 1964); Brady, 179 F. Supp. at 322. In the second type of case, items are recovered from ancient shipwrecks and no owner appears in court to claim them. Such circumstances may give rise to an inference of abandonment, but should an owner appear in court and there be no evidence of an express abandonment, the law of salvage must be applied. We [\*462] agree with the author of Admiralty and Maritime Law that: > > In the treasure salvage cases, often involving wrecks hundreds of years old, the inference of abandonment may arise from lapse of time and nonuse of the property, or there may even be an express disclaimer of ownership. This calls for the application of the law of finds. By contrast, parties who intend to assert a claim of ownership may be identified. In such a case the law of salvage is applied. > > § 15-7, at 514 (footnotes omitted); see also Hatteras, Inc. v. THE U.S.S. HATTERAS, 1984 A.M.C. 1094, 1097 n.5 (S.D. Tex. 1981) (“While mere nonuse of property and lapse of time without more do not establish abandonment, they may, under circumstances where the owner has otherwise failed to act or assert any claim to property, support an inference of intent to abandon”). > [@](#): > > In conclusion, when a previous owner claims long lost property that was involuntarily taken from his control, the law is hesitant to find an abandonment and such must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Here, we are unable to find the requisite evidence that could lead a court to conclude that the underwriters affirmatively abandoned their interest in the gold. The Court ordered the lower court to apply the law of salvage. Which it did, giving 90% of the value of the wreck to the salvors. The cases and much more are reprinted in Richard Cunningham, _Archaeology, Relics And the Law_ (2005): [Best Web Buys Price Comparison Shopping](http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Archaeology_Relics_And_the_Law-ISBN_1594601194.html?isrc=b-search) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/6 "2007-01-22T18:56:24Z")
I forgot to point out that one of the tricks is that courts tend to find abandonment if a case is filed and the original owner or his assignee doesn’t show up to assert rights in the ship. It’s in the case, I just neglected to point it out. And then the board started timing out, so I went to get my daughter a bagel. When I returned, it was already too late to edit. Sigh. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/7 "2007-01-22T21:48:36Z")
[Here’s a timely newspaper article](http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/stricken-ship-provides-onestop-shop/2007/01/23/1169330861743.html), albeit about a _very recent_ (ship hasn’t broken up yet) shipwreck. > [@](#): > > Police said they wouldn’t stop people from taking goods from Branscombe Beach in Devon. Officers handed out leaflets explaining that they must report anything they find to the authorities. > > “We’re not stopping people because we’ve got no powers to do so,” a police spokesman said. “The leaflets explain their responsibilities.” ---
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-sunken-ships-still-owned-by-anyone-a-hundred-years-later/388975/8 "2007-01-24T19:05:06Z")
Seems like this would be a good candidate for a statute of limitations - claims of ownership could not be honored after \_ years under water. Write your congressperson.