BoaterEd Store      - Help Support This Forum - Join Today!      Hunting/Fishing Stuff
BoaterEd
Username:
Password:
Save Password


Register

Active Topics | Active Polls | Resources | Members | Online Users | Avatar Legend | Statistics
[ Active Members: 6 | Guests: 183 ]  [ Total: 189 ]  [ Newest Member: Rleemorris ]
 All Forums
 Forums
 Ask the Captain
 Nav Rules and Liability Question
Next Page
 New Topic |   New Poll New Poll |   Reply to Topic | 
Author Previous Topic: Ablative Bottom Paint Recommendations Topic Next Topic: Next Boat
Page: of 2

divedaddy

RO# 24262

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  09:27:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have a Nav Rules ďproblemĒ for the experienced boaters on this board (Les, break out the book). It is about a situation that has me a bit perplexed. Ultimately this is a question about fault and liability.

The Scenario
Two power vessels are both headed in the same direction (letís use north) on an inland river. Both are operating normally in the main of the river, neither is hindered or restricted in its ability to maneuver, broad daylight, no unusual or complicating circumstances. Vessel A is north of vessel B and A is operating at a slow to moderate speed. B is operating much faster than and is about to overtake A. A is unaware of Bís presence and that he is about to be overtaken. Upon approaching within a few hundred feet of Aís stern B decides to pass on Aís port side (Bís starboard to Aís port). Without any signal B maintains its speed and maneuvers to port so as to pass A within about a hundred feet of A. Suddenly, A turns to port and accelerates. As A begins its turn and acceleration it becomes aware of B. Both operators attempt evasive maneuvers to avoid the other, but it is too late and a collision with significant damage to both vessels results. The point of collision is Aís port side midway between itís beam and bow against Bís starboard side midway between itís beam and bow.


Questions:

1. If you were a law enforcement officer (Coast Guard) investigating the accident, who would you charge, and what would you charge them with?

2. If you were a judge or a jury member charged with deciding liability for damages, whom would you conclude is liable?

3. If B attempted to pass on Aís starboard side and the collision then occurred at a point of Aís starboard side midway between the beam and bow against Bís port side similar position, would that change anything?
Eric

Homeport: Clear Lake, TX

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  09:42:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think B is at fault. He never gave 2 short blasts of the horn to indicate that he was going to pass on boat A's port side, nor did he try to hail port A on the channel 16 to give his intentions.

Question 1: Charge boat B, failing to overtake a vessel properly (if such an offense exists).
Question 2: Both boats are liable 50%, boat B because of #1 above, and boat A because he turned and failed to check if it was clear.
Question 3: No change.


-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Edited by - blouderback on Jan 17 2007 09:43:58

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

dale

RO# 118

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  09:44:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
In my mind vessel A is partially at fault for not maintaining a proper lookout. There is no way you should be overtaken without knowing it. But A is not required to signal his turn to port while B is required to signal his overtaking. Most of the fault is B but A has some also. I don't think anything is changed by which side the overtaking was attempted since port/stbd. don't apply here. Luck. Dale


Homeport: Virginia Beach, VA. Go to Top of Page

Sea Gull

RO# 11632

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:07:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There is plenty of fault to go around, but the majority would rest with B (maybe 70/30). B should have contacted A on VHF or sounded 2 short whistles and should have waited to get either a 2 short whistle OK or 5 short whistle danger signal. Absent agreement from A, B should have assumed that it was unsafe to pass. At the very least, though, ANY signal from B would have made A aware of his presence.

A was obligated to keep proper watch (which would make him aware of B), to assume that B was overtaking him (even if it was not immediately apparent), and to hold course and speed as the stand on vessel.





Homeport: CT Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:11:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't think I've ever seen a boater assigned 100% of the blame in an accident involving two boats, unless one was moored. Personally, I'd consider boat A to be primarily at fault. A proper lookout, as dale says, is required. And a boater should NEVER make a course change without looking around, just like a lane change should never be made without looking. There have been a few cases lately where the court took "common practice" into consideration. In most areas, very few boaters actually signal when passing. Boat A has the responsibility to maintain course and speed when he's been overtaken. It's his job to know when he's being overtaken along with Boat B's job to make sure that A knows he's being overtaken. If you sideswipe a car in another lane because you didn't know it was there, the excuse that you didn't know it was there won't hold much water. It doesn't work at sea either.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:21:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just because very few skippers don't use the required toots when passing, doesn't mean that they're not at fault if there is an accident. Just like a cop probably won't pull you over for not using a turn signal when changing lanes but will cite you for it if you're involved in an accident and he saw that you didn't use your turn signal. Ask my nephew about that one.

You're right, though. When I toot twice to pass on the other boat's port or once to pass on his starboard, I usually get a wave (sometimes the single finger wave) and a nasty look, like "What the heck do you want?", instead of the required return toots.



-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

Brian N

RO# 3970



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:24:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Therein lies the problem Bob. Too many boaters are not aware of the signalling system and assume you are just "honking the horn" at them...




Homeport: Somewhere in the woods, NH Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:28:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maybe if the Nav rules were posted in the Boating Safety forum, and newbies had access to it, we could educate some of them!



-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

HOGAN

RO# 3813



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:34:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by blouderback

Maybe if the Nav rules were posted in the Boating Safety forum, and newbies had access to it, we could educate some of them!





Or you could buy a navigation rules book...


_________________________


1999 Trojan 440 Express
2005 Scout 175 Sportfish

MMSI# 338049724




Surly to bed, surly to rise...

Homeport: Haverstraw Marina, Haverstraw, NY Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:45:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's stay on topic. Please answer the original 3 questions.

-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:45:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bobby, on the pretty blue menu bar, move your mouse over RO's menu. From the drop down list, click on Rules of the Road. You will then get the full PDF of the current nav rules - all for FREE, you like free. Everyone has access, even guests.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:47:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Cool, thanks Les.

-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

HOGAN

RO# 3813



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:55:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by blouderback

Let's stay on topic. Please answer the original 3 questions.



Suggesting we open a forum for you to use is "stay(ing) on topic" and andwering the "original 3 questions"???

Somehow, I don't think so...



_________________________


1999 Trojan 440 Express
2005 Scout 175 Sportfish

MMSI# 338049724




Surly to bed, surly to rise...

Homeport: Haverstraw Marina, Haverstraw, NY Go to Top of Page

Boat_John

RO# 23266

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:57:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Both are at fault for a laundry list of reasons.
The vessel being overtaken (A)
Failed to maintain a proper lookout
Failed to recognize that a risk of collision existed
Failed to initiate proper manuvering signals and receive appropriate response before changing course and/or speed
Failed to sound the danger signal when a risk of collision was determined

The overtaking vessel
Was operating at an unsafe speed
Failed to initiate proper manuvering signals and receive appropriate response
Failed to sound the danger signal when a risk of collision was determined

I would say both are equally at fault.

I don't think which side the overtaking vessel attempted to use would make a difference.

Are juries used in a admiralty court?



Edited by - Boat_John on Jan 17 2007 11:00:04

Homeport: Billerica, MA Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  10:58:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, does everyone agree that boater B should be cited?

-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

Boat_John

RO# 23266

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:06:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by blouderback

Maybe if the Nav rules were posted in the Boating Safety forum, and newbies had access to it, we could educate some of them!





The USCG already has them posted online.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm



Homeport: Billerica, MA Go to Top of Page

divedaddy

RO# 24262

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:41:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I appreciate all of the responses. I take it most agree there is plenty of blame to be spread. Since I posted the questions, I'll share my interpretation of the rules. I hope others will set me straight where I have erred.

I mostly agree with Boat John. If I were charging, it would be as follows (Inland Rules referenced):
Boat A Charged under
Rule 5 - failed to maintain proper lookout
Rule 7 - failed to determine risk of collision
Rule 17 - failed to keep course and speed

Boat B Charged under
Rule 6 - failed to proceed at a safe speed
Rule 7 - failed to determine risk of collision
Rule 16 and Rule 17-d - failed to keep well clear
Rule 34-c - failed to signal intention when overtaking

Clearly both parties departed from their obligations under several rules. I differ from Boat John in that I don't see that A needed to (by the rules) to initiate a maneuvering signal other than to respond to B's signal, which B did not make.

On liability, it seems to me that B bears the greater burden as the overtaking vessel. Clearly A's actions contributed, and as I described it had A simply maintained it's course the two would have passed without incident. But, if B had been operating at a safe speed, recognized the risk of collision and operated so as to remain "well clear", A's error should not have resulted in a collision.

Personally, I find it hard to draw many parallels between the marine world and cars. On roads we have clear lane markings and traffic control signals. It is much easier to figure out who screwed up.



Eric

Homeport: Clear Lake, TX Go to Top of Page

HOGAN

RO# 3813



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:48:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The advise I always follow is to constantly survey the area around me to be aware of other boats. Any boat that I see, either in person or on my radar is a potential hazard.

I imagine what the stupidest thing is that the other boat can do, then make a plan to deal with it when they actually do it.



_________________________


1999 Trojan 440 Express
2005 Scout 175 Sportfish

MMSI# 338049724




Surly to bed, surly to rise...

Homeport: Haverstraw Marina, Haverstraw, NY Go to Top of Page

Tim R

RO# 2009

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:48:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would put higher liability on Vessel A. Even though Vessel B failed to signal, Vessel A failed to maintain a proper lookout and to maintain course and speed while being overtaken (A turns to port and accelerates). There is no indication that Vessel B was operating at an unsafe speed, only that it was operating at a faster speed than Vessel A (prior to Aís acceleration).


Homeport: Northwest, NJ Go to Top of Page

PascalG

RO# 12212



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:53:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
bob, absolutely not... A bears most of the responsibility since he ...

- failed to maintain a proper watch
- changed course AND speed while being overtaken.
- failed to avoid the collision

the first two are the big ones here...

B on the other should have signaled, although it's hard to prove that he didn't... I'm not sure about the unsafe speed, unless it is established that he was going too fast for the maneuver. if A was doing 10kts and he was on plane at 25kts, i woudn't call that unsafe. The distance though, 100', is unsafe in open waters.





Pascal
1970 Hatteras 53 MY
26' Starfish sloop
12' Westphal Catboat
16' Hobie Cat
13' Sandbarhopper

Homeport: Miami, FL Go to Top of Page

divedaddy

RO# 24262

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:56:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Whether B was operating at an unsafe speed or not is certainly not absolute. As I read Rule 6, it is a judgement call.

Rule 6: Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentration of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter of her own lights;
(v) the state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
(vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water.


It seems to me that B was operating at a speed that prevented him from taking action to avoid a collision.


Eric

Homeport: Clear Lake, TX Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:58:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
daddy, in my experience, you are way off the mark in assigning B the larger portion of the blame. The bottom line is that A turned into the path of B. Had he not altered course, there would have been no accident.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

Boat_John

RO# 23266

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  11:59:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by divedaddy

I differ from Boat John in that I don't see that A needed to (by the rules) to initiate a maneuvering signal other than to respond to B's signal, which B did not make.




My interpretation of signals required by vessel A is based on Rule 34A
When power-driven vessels are in sight of one another and
meeting or crossing at a distance within half a mile of each other,
each vessel underway, when maneuvering as authorized or required
by these Rules:

Vessels were within sight and a crossing situation existed/was made to exist by the actions of vessel A.



Homeport: Billerica, MA Go to Top of Page

Silverton_34

RO# 23572

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:01:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Attempting to relate autos on a road to boats in water maneuvers is like trying to mix oil and water. Cars do not have to signal when overtaking. Cars have defined lanes. Can you imagine the noise if cars had to sound their horns when overtaking or turning? If you turn into the path of a car alongside of you then what legal obligation does the other car have except attempting to avoid you?


Homeport: FL Go to Top of Page

blouderback

RO# 24057

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:17:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My question was simply does everyone agree that boat B should be cited. I guess I was trying to break it apart and get everyone's opinion that in fact boat B should have been cited, regardless of boat A. I guess there's an arguement that both should be cited, but I think that boat B should definitely be cited.

Let me put it this way: If the CG or other marine patrol was following boat B and saw (and heard) the whole incident, does anyone agree that AT LEAST boat B should be cited?


-Bob-
.................................................................
"Annabo": 2005 Larson Senza 206 w/5.0L Bravo III

Homeport: Chalfont, Pennsylvania Go to Top of Page

PascalG

RO# 12212



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:26:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
NO ! i still maintain that while B is in part responsible, A should have maintained a proper watch and NEVER have changed course AND speed. this the most important violation of the rules here, it's also the most clear cut. the distance at which B passed, while apparently insuficient, is not clear cut. not maintaining course and speed is as clear cut as it gets.

Pascal
1970 Hatteras 53 MY
26' Starfish sloop
12' Westphal Catboat
16' Hobie Cat
13' Sandbarhopper

Homeport: Miami, FL Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:33:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, folks, I guess you are going to force me to do this

1) (a) (i) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or
fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway
which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such
crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate
only within that channel or fairway.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with
another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her
beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is
overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight
of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking
another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), on the Great Lakes, Western
Rivers, or water specified by the Secretary, a power-driven vessel
crossing a river shall keep out of the way of a power-driven vessel
ascending or descending the river.

(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other
shall keep her course and speed.


Please note that the definition of being overtaken is not the sound of a horn. It is "A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam." The vessel being overtaken has a duty to know what is behind him. If it is being overtaken, it must hold course and speed. The only thing Boat B did is fail to signal, an action not usually performed by recreational boats. His failure to signal does not relieve A of the responsibility to hold course and speed. Boat B has every expectation to believe that A would maintain course and speed and to stay to the right of the channel in the river.



Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

divedaddy

RO# 24262

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:35:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Great points, All. Thanks. I tried to split this into two parts - one that would help identify potential infractions under the Rules, the second to assign liability for the consequential damages. I am no attorney but I would think in this situation these would be two separate points of law. Am I off here?

Boat John - good point, and I think you may be correct. In making the turn A could be viewed as having changed the situation from being overtaken to crossing. In the original scenario I purposely constructed the paths so that even in crossing B was burdened. Question 3 was intended to get opinions if the roles in a crossing situation were reversed.

Les & Pascal - I will bow to your wisdom and experience. I initially felt that this would be viewed as an overtaking situation. In such it seems to me that the Rules place much greater burden on the vessel overtaking, hence Rule 17 (d). From the feedback from both of you I take it A would likely be found to be primarily liable.

Silverton - I agree completely. My point exactly.


Eric

Homeport: Clear Lake, TX Go to Top of Page

Jim Carter

RO# 2818

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:41:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would assign the blame to boat A. This boat operator must maintain a lookout at all times. Boat A must maintain course and speed while being overtaken. If he did so, there would not have been the accident.


"The Boat"
Georgian Bay

Homeport: Georgian Bay, Ontario Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:55:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Eric, there's one very important point to remember, concerning part 2 of your post. If any resulting accident just involves boat damage, the insurance companies will work it out with virtually no input from you. If there is significant injury involved, the case could wind up in court to be presented to six or twelve people who have probably never been on a boat much less know about the rules of the road. Both sides will present a stream of experts who will blame whomever isn't paying them. At the end of the day, the jury will relate the case to their own experience, driving. And most have probably been cut off by someone changing lanes quickly.

Absent any indication that B was exceeding the speed limit or doing anything other than proceeding up river faster than A, the onus has to be on A to behave as expected.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

Flutterby

RO# 14378

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:55:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is a new wrinkle: in the delta there are lots of twists and turns of the waterways, making it impossilbe to see other boats from long distances. Sometimes those go-fast offshore boats are traveling over 100 MPH. And they sure do NOT signal their approach/intent to pass. I've had them blow by me when I am traveling at a typical 30 MPH on my side of the waterway. Scares the h3!! out of me! Even if you are looking behind you, you only get a few seconds of visual warning before they pass. I wish they were not allowed to go that fast in less then "open water" areas!

Comments?


Just think about the mess Obama inherit this time. And it ain't Bush's fault!!!

Homeport: California Sierras/Gold Country Go to Top of Page

Msibley

RO# 16534

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  12:55:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
They're both at fault. The fools both got out of bed and decided to take their foolishness to the waterways where they could have easily involved (it's obvious they involved at least one RO) any of us.

I say, impound their boats and make them serve community service cleaning out the holding tanks of boats at the marina.





Mike
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."
- Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, Commanding, Union Armies-Military Division of the Mississippi

Edited by - Msibley on Jan 17 2007 12:56:15

Homeport: Melbourne, FL Go to Top of Page

divedaddy

RO# 24262

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:06:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks, Les. You make a good point about the issue with courts. The whole discussion has been very insightful. I guess rule 17(d) will still nag at me - it seems to imply that even if the stand-on vessel fails to maintain her course and speed, that the give-way vessel remains "obligated". As a career scientist this is one about which I will have to nag my sister (a maritime attorney).

Mike - since I created this gem in my own warped mind I expect to be first in line to have my holding tank cleaned. Just find me a good A and B.


Eric

Homeport: Clear Lake, TX Go to Top of Page

Msibley

RO# 16534

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:09:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Eric...it shouldn't take long. I see this all the time on the river - near collision, that is.



Mike
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."
- Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, Commanding, Union Armies-Military Division of the Mississippi

Homeport: Melbourne, FL Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:18:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Eric, I am certainly not saying the B is blameless. But all the rules governing B's behavior are based on one assumption, that A is going to maintain course and speed. You actually said in your post that both tried to avoid a collision. Even if B had signaled, the signal would have been meaningless unless A acknowledged. The odds of that happening between rec boats are about 1000 to 1.



Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

Tim R

RO# 2009

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:28:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Eric, the original post states a passing distance of 100í. Pascal opines that this may not be enough in open waters. True perhaps, but I think this situation is much more likely to occur in a narrow channel where 100í may be all that you can give. Thus, Vessel B satisfied her Ďobligationí up to the point of overtaking. At the point where Vessel A turned to port AND accelerated, both vessels then had to ďattempt evasive maneuversĒ to avoid a collision. Given that, I canít see where Vessel B failed in her obligation to keep out of the way in Rule 17.


Homeport: Northwest, NJ Go to Top of Page

Ironworks

RO# 20174



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:45:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The most important violation would be the absence of a whistle signal by B to indicate overtaking. Until A hears the whistle or knows he is going to be overtaken the other rules are mute.The burden is on B.Think of A as a motoryacht with a pilot house and he can"t see aft,now you know why whistle signals are so very important. Size matters and when you think of a ten foot A or a 50 ft. A you get different perspectives.

44' Viking ACMY Diesel
28 ft Omega 454 Gas IB

Homeport: Toledo Ohio. Go to Top of Page

rommer

RO# 12280



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:57:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So in other words Ironworks a motor yacht can make any turn he/she wants without making sure the planed move is safe? Sorry, I won't buy that. Making a blind turn is wreckless and not maintaining a proper watch. If they can't see aft then they better send a mate aft to make sure the intended course is clear.






Boats, yup, 5 of em...
WLC - We love Champlin's!

Homeport: Liberty Landing Marina, NJ Go to Top of Page

JoeBTB

RO# 517

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  13:59:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Did anyone notice that this scenario is virtually identical the scenario that BeachChick described? In her scenario, boater A in the jetski was being overtaken and turned to port, and a collision ensued.

As I mentioned in that thread, I certainly think that boater A deserves the lion's share of the liability for failing to keep course and speed.



Homeport: Go to Top of Page

PascalG

RO# 12212



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  14:05:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
ironworks... that makes no sense! if the layout of the vessel prevents the helmsperson from looking aft, he still needs to check before turning.

i don't have a wall seaprating the saloon and helm and have a reasonable clear view from my lower helm but always poke my head out the side doors before turning just to make sure nobody is my blind spot.

moreover, at the lower helm, with the doors and windows closed and the engines running below, i will not hear the typical rec vessel horn... in this case, whistle signals are useless.


Pascal
1970 Hatteras 53 MY
26' Starfish sloop
12' Westphal Catboat
16' Hobie Cat
13' Sandbarhopper

Homeport: Miami, FL Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  14:14:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Iron, I posted the legal definition of overtaking above. It requires no acknowledgment on the part of the vessel being overtaken.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

dale

RO# 118

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  14:48:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Anyone argue with my answer that changing the collision from port to stbd. makes no difference? Luck. Dale


Homeport: Virginia Beach, VA. Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  14:58:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
no, none. One can't go from being an vessel being overtaken to one in a crossing situation by changing course. The course change in itself is against the rules.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

oldfishboat

RO# 24623

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  15:29:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To me in this case its hard to excuse the driver of A vessel for not looking were they are going.

For me its that simple.

But courts would probably be willing to at least hear arguments for other. IMO some accountability could be handed to the opperator of B.

Not saying I would agree with that.

Just my oppinion.

Hard to replace lookin around to keep ya safe or something along them lines.

Thanks for this thread.


Oldfishboat guy

Homeport: Go to Top of Page

Blue Moon

RO# 23720

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  15:55:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Anyone see the simularties between this scenario and Boaterchics accident as it was described?
I agree w/ PascalG, most of the blame has to placed on A.



Homeport: Port Royal, SC Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  15:58:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the scenarios differ because the post here described a situation in detail, wasn't looking for a predetermined answer and didn't argue with the opinions.



Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

HOGAN

RO# 3813



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  16:04:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Allright boys and girls, here is the lawyers anser:

Nobody is liable until a judge or jury says they are liable.


_________________________


1999 Trojan 440 Express
2005 Scout 175 Sportfish

MMSI# 338049724




Surly to bed, surly to rise...

Homeport: Haverstraw Marina, Haverstraw, NY Go to Top of Page

Blue Moon

RO# 23720

Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  16:16:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Touche!


Homeport: Port Royal, SC Go to Top of Page

L Hall

RO# 1



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  16:18:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It probably would be more accurate to say that no one is liable until a lawyer convinces a judge or jury that someone is.




Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Homeport: Concord, NH Go to Top of Page

Ironworks

RO# 20174



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  16:53:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The first violation is boat B not signaling.Everthing after that is collision avoidance and that is where they will share some blame. Yes the overtaking vessel has the burden of signalling and that alerts the other vessel to maintain course and speed.

44' Viking ACMY Diesel
28 ft Omega 454 Gas IB

Homeport: Toledo Ohio. Go to Top of Page

rommer

RO# 12280



Posted - Jan 17 2007 :  17:04:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Jim

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with
another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her
beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is
overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight
of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

Please tell me where it says you are overtaking when you sound your signal or is that just your opinion?



Boats, yup, 5 of em...
WLC - We love Champlin's!

Homeport: Liberty Landing Marina, NJ Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic: Ablative Bottom Paint Recommendations Topic Next Topic: Next Boat  
 New Topic |   New Poll New Poll |   Reply to Topic | 
Next Page
Jump To:
BoaterEd © BoaterEd Go To Top Of Page
This page took 0.84 seconds to load
Forum Guidelines and Privacy Notice

    

Boatered.com