Collision today

[Scott T-Bird]

@Scott T-Bird At that point, had he sounded a horn to no affect, it would have been clear that collision avoidance trumped stand-on status. My thinking is not irrational, at all.

All that 8(f)(iii) states is that if you are a stand on vessel you are still obliged to follow rules 4 through 19 if a there's an impending collision. So, you can be at least partially responsible if you fail to mitigate the situation when you could have.

No, I don't think your thinking is irrational. I thought the statement about "stand-on" and collision avoidance is contradictory. Of course, when "stand-on", a predictable, steady course, is going to lead to collision, the necessary action is to avoid collision no matter what, and Rules 4 through 19 provide for this. That is rational. The problem is that it isn't always possible to avoid getting hit. I think the single provision (f) (iii), which isn't even necessary, only serves one purpose, and that is to cast doubt on the victim of the accident.

Tell me, if it is a fundamental principle of common law, that both parties must take whatever action is possible to mitigate damages or injury. which I agree it is, why do you think Rule 8, (f) (iii) is a necessary clause? What purpose does it serve?

 

[jviss]

What purpose does it serve?

To make it clear that just because you are the stand on vessel, you are still obligated to avoid collisions, even if it means altering your course, changing your speed, etc.

 

[Head Sail]

What purpose does it serve?

Not everyone is a lawyer and understands common law. An important purpose of the colregs is to educate the public and promote safety on navigable waters.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

To make it clear that just because you are the stand on vessel, you are still obligated to avoid collisions, even if it means altering your course, changing your speed, etc.

Fair enough! I think that is where we essentially divide. I tend to agree with you that it is a fundamental principle of common law that both parties must take action to mitigate damages or injury, therefore the provision is unnecessary in Colregs. IMO, it doesn't help to make anything clear because it is already self-evident common sense law. Instead, I think Rule 8 (f) (iii) tends to obfuscate the responsibility of the "give way" vessel and can lead to erroneous judgement against a victim.

My position is that there must be an assumption that the victim has taken appropriate action to avoid damages or injury. It is common sense. They must not be burdened by proving that they took appropriate action when they are the victim of clearly wrongful actions by the other party. If both parties took demonstrably wrongful actions, then there is reason to question. but failing avoidance of a collision isn't necessarily a wrongful action and (f) (iii) shouldn't be used against the victim.

That's about as simple as we can break it down, no?

 

[Brian D]

I see that someone stated the sailboat took no action to avoid the collision. What if the sailboat had no means of taking evasive action? Little or no wind to perform any kind of maneuver? What if this boat did not come equipment we any sort of propulsion system? I see in the image what looks like an exhaust pipe so it probably did have an inboard. So what if the sailboat had issues trying to start said engine if it had one.

Just wondering.

 

[justsomeguy]

Just wondering.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Yes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of like "progressive" thought processes. ("We follow the rules only when they serve our own interest, but not when we think rules are not 'morally' the right thing to do").

First, you could not have read the entire link because it is over 11 pages long and quite detailed. Even if you'd started an hour ago, you couldn't possibly have read it all.

Second, your partial quote above is offensive and reportable. This is not the Sails Call Lounge. I find theft, grifting, lying and corruption far more offensive actions.

For the newbies reading this thread, please understand that Colregs has been developed over, literally, centuries. If you're really interested, read my link and Colregs themselves.

Scott is simply wrong, because common law has nothing to do with it.

 

[SVMusic]

Near Annapolis I believe, news reports indicated no injuries, a miracle there!View attachment 155134

Oh wow oh wow!!

 

[Brian D]

Who? Me? Never!

 

[jviss]

My position is that there must be an assumption that the victim has taken appropriate action to avoid damages or injury. It is common sense. They must not be burdened by proving that they took appropriate action when they are the victim of clearly wrongful actions by the other party.

I am only continuing to reply because I find this so fascinating. I'm sincerely trying to wrap my head around what you are saying, but it keeps coming up as pretzel logic.

You say "the victim." I don't think of a collision as having a victim and a perpetrator. I think there are simply two parties to a collision. After that, there is a finding of fact, and then an apportionment of responsibility. The finding of fact and apportionment are not prejudiced by victim or perpetrator assumptions.

If actions were "clearly wrongful" and there was a victim, we wouldn't need to find facts and apportion responsibility, would we? But who is it that determined who was the victim and the wrongfully acting party, if we skip the fact finding phase? That's where this discussion "pretzels." You are presuming determinations that have not been made.

You back up from the moment of the collision all the way to the boats not being on a collision course, and construct a timeline of headings and speeds, actions taken or not, and overlay the wind, sea, and visibility. You determine, by various means who knew what when, who did what when. And you begin apportioning responsibility based on this.

I speculate that if this ever did get that far, to an apportionment of responsibility by a judge or magistrate, that while the powerboat would be almost completely responsible, the apportionment to the sailboat would not be zero. But as I've stated, I don't think it will get that far. I'm not a lawyer, much less a maritime lawyer, but I think the insurance companies will settle, and the powerboat captain will face discipline, and that's it.

 

[gettinthere]

Scott, what you are inferring is that if the sailboat was in the right, he as no obligation to do anything. What if the powerboat driver had had a heart attack and the boat was not under command? The sailboat skipper KNEW he was on a collision course and did NOTHING.
If there is nothing codified to require the sailboat skipper to do something then his obstinance is made legal. I'd guess the sailboat will be found much more than 10% at fault. It would have been easy to bear off and he made a conscious choice to not avoid the collision.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

I am only continuing to reply because I find this so fascinating. I'm sincerely trying to wrap my head around what you are saying, but it keeps coming up as pretzel logic.

If actions were "clearly wrongful" and there was a victim, we wouldn't need to find facts and apportion responsibility, would we? But who is it that determined who was the victim and the wrongfully acting party, if we skip the fact finding phase? That's where this discussion "pretzels." You are presuming determinations that have not been made.

No that's not true. I've never said that there is no need to find the facts. Of course all the facts should be found before there is a determination. I'm not using pretzel logic, either. It's pretty straightforward that I think that if the facts show that a powerboat ran over a sailboat under sail, then the powerboat should be found to be at fault. That's an obvious conclusion based on the Colregs.

Where it seems to me that you use pretzel logic is the notion that because there was a collision, it is probable that the sailboat didn't take sufficient evasive action. You conclude that the sailboat captain should have done something to avoid the hit and for that reason, he may share the blame to some extent. You seem to base this conclusion on your own experiences and your understanding of a provision in the Colregs, which I just happen to think is wrong and misleading. That's not twisted logic, it's just opinion. What a difficult world we live in where one side of an argument feels compelled to label a differing opinion simply because we don't agree.

My complaint is that the Colregs introduce a provision that can obfuscate a seemingly obvious conclusion. Why should a sailboat captain be partially blamed for a collision with a powerboat simply because he couldn't get out of the way?

You can label my logic but that doesn't make the label fit.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Scott, what you are inferring is that if the sailboat was in the right, he as no obligation to do anything. What if the powerboat driver had had a heart attack and the boat was not under command? The sailboat skipper KNEW he was on a collision course and did NOTHING.
If there is nothing codified to require the sailboat skipper to do something then his obstinance is made legal. I'd guess the sailboat will be found much more than 10% at fault. It would have been easy to bear off and he made a conscious choice to not avoid the collision.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, that isn't what I am inferring. First, it doesn't sound like the powerboat captain had a heart attack, so that is probably a straw man argument and it makes no sense to consider it. Second, we know that the sailboat captain tried to raise the powerboat on the radio, so we can't say that he did NOTHING. Stu and others say that "stand on" is an obligation. Presumably that means the sailboat captain should maintain a steady and predictable course so that the intersecting boat can respond accordingly. That is a reasonable thought process, until it is too late. That also didn't seem to work, so appropriately, that argument would have to be thrown out. It appears that you think the captain of the sailboat was obstinant! I find it surprising that this conclusion could be drawn. So if he is "stand on" and he acts responsibly, that is obstinant?!?!

My conclusion is that the sailboat was essentially a sitting duck for an out-of-control power boat. Action or inaction could lead to collision. It may have been impossible to determine in advance what could be done (other than try to get their attention) to avoid the hit.

We all have differing opinions, that is for sure. In case you are wondering, yes, I believe that avoidance of a collision does NOT have to be codified. It is such an elemental rule of survival that I think it is absurd to find a need to codify this as a requirement. As I have said previously, I think it has more potential to lead to wrongful conclusions.

 

[Ron20324]

Unfortunately, Scott, I think you are missing the entire point of Colregs. And, separately, it has nothing to do with the terms.

AND THUS WE AVOID NEW JERSEY.

 

[Gunni]

What if the powerboat driver had had a heart attack and the boat was not under command

It would not have mattered, since he was operating his charter fishing boat without an operating radio! It wasn’t until he had hit the sailboat that SOMEONE ELSE on the charter fishing boat turned the radio on and called for assistance.

 

[Stu Jackson]

It's pretty straightforward that I think that if the facts show that a powerboat ran over a sailboat under sail, then the powerboat should be found to be at fault. That's an obvious conclusion based on the Colregs.

Except, Scott, that is not.

We all have differing opinions, that is for sure. In case you are wondering, yes, I believe that avoidance of a collision does NOT have to be codified. It is such an elemental rule of survival that I think it is absurd to find a need to codify this as a requirement. As I have said previously, I think it has more potential to lead to wrongful conclusions.

Except, yet agiin, it IS codified. There is a reason for that.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't think anyone has said you aren't.

However, the issue here is what is in COLREGS. Your opinion is that it is not required, etc.

The reality and the FACT is that it is. And if you dig a little deeper into the link I sent you, you might be enlightened.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions don't change facts. About Colregs.

I do agree wholeheartedly with you that the sailboat was a sitting duck.

 

[Davidasailor26]

Stu and others say that "stand on" is an obligation. Presumably that means the sailboat captain should maintain a steady and predictable course so that the intersecting boat can respond accordingly. That is a reasonable thought process, until it is too late.

Not quite. As I read the rules the obligation is to hold course until just before it's too late - a time when action is necessary based on demonstrated inaction of the other boat.

So if he is "stand on" and he acts responsibly, that is obstinant?!?!

No, he's obstinant if he fails to act after it's evident that the other boat won't, and the only way to avoid a collision is to evade.

Action or inaction could lead to collision. It may have been impossible to determine in advance what could be done (other than try to get their attention) to avoid the hit.

Maybe, but that's one of the facts that needs to be found, not a foregone conclusion. Maybe he was a sitting duck, or maybe he had enough way on that he could have avoided the collision if he had turned sooner.

Why should a sailboat captain be partially blamed for a collision with a powerboat simply because he couldn't get out of the way?

If he *couldn't* get out of the way by taking any action, then he he shouldn't be blamed. But if he could have taken some action and failed to then he should be partially (not equally) responsible. Maybe he failed to take action because of obstinance (unlikely), or maybe because he just improperly judged the situation and didn't turn early enough. Either way it could be fair to place some blame on him.

 

[waterpirate]

At the end of the day the duty of the skipper is to protect vessel and crew/ passengers. Somehow these two knuckle heads failed in their charged duties. I do not give a rats ass about what the rule book says and who thought they were in the right. See first sentence. They both are to blame. We should all be thankful that these two ass hats did not kill or injure anyone other than a lot of fiberglass. That damage is for the insurance companies to sort out.
Eric

 

[rpwillia]

Wow, it's hard to believe, to understand, that some people commenting there are speculating that it's the sailboat that's at fault! Holy Cow.

Just google Bismarck Dinius, Lynn Thornton and Chief Deputy Sheriff Russ Perdock. Bismarck was at the helm of a sailboat with navigation lights on in the evening and had consumed a beer. He was prosecuted for manslaughter. The miscarriage of justice was that Russell Perdock was driving a speedboat at excessive speed and drove over the sailboat and Thronton was killed in the collision. Perdock, the Chief Deputy Sheriff for Lake County, was escorted away by fellow deputies and not given a sobriety check until the next morning. And then they went after Dinius with everything they had, but he was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Perdock as far as I know was never charged. It is good to be one of the good old boys!

 

[Gunni]

You couldn’t swing a dead cat in Lake County, California without hitting a crooked cop! No such issues here.