More about anchoring and Admirality Law

[Kings Gambit]

I've seen some versions of this here, and I've even posted it myself from the source at the link below.

"And perhaps the most immediately practical information is the Pardey’s discussion of anchoring etiquette. Who knew the admiralty law case reference that requires a boater to alert his/her new neighbor if the latter’s anchorage will either interfere with the swinging room of the first to arrive or the first boat’s ability to safely maneuver out of the anchorage. FYI the U.S. Admiralty Court, in the Juniata decision (no. 124-5861), found that A Vessel shall be found at fault if it…anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging, or if it fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth. This case appears to create an affirmative duty on the part of the first boat in an anchorage to inform a newcomer if swinging room or a safe exit route is impaired. Now you know."

https://newsfromthebow.wordpress.co...-cruiser-3rd-edition-by-lin-and-larry-pardey/

After a few months of trying to track down this citation, I finally blundered on to a chance to use the Westlaw database and found the brief(?) of the Juniata case to which the above quote evidently refers. First, it appears mis-cited. The case (decision) record is 124 F. 861 from 1903; not as reported above. Second--I found no such language in the decision I read in Westlaw. Whatever the origin of the italicized verbiage above, it is not to be found in the actual text of the Juniata decision; although, the general sentiment so expressed is clearly present. A vessel coming to anchor near one already anchored has the obligation to allow sufficient berth space for the anchored vessel to remain safely anchored even if it means she (i.e., the first anchored vessel) must veer more rode to prevent dragging in high winds, etc. However, there's nothing about warning, or giving notification to, the newcomer. Perhaps that was introduced in some more recent case decision.

Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903 (in part)
"A ‘safe berth‘ should not be construed to mean one from which probable accident might not arise, but ample space; that is, taking into consideration all the exigencies likely to arise, either by reason of the character of the harbor, the conditions of the weather, and the season of the year, no danger of collision would arise, and close calculations should not be made, and risks run in giving room; doubts should be solved with a view of securing safety, having in view the possible contingencies that might arise, making it necessary for each vessel to take greater space than was apparently required at the moment; and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion."

 

[Will Gilmore]

Mere speculation on my part here, but the wording in the rules on right-of-way, where all vessels shall take action to avoid a collision regardless of right-of-way, may imply an obligation in party A to inform party B of any dangers to their fouling on anchoring.
The end result, from a maritime law perspective, would be the same.
Many of these laws were worded as they are, to satisfy not only the enforcement agencies and the general public, but also boat owners who hire captains as stewards of their property. An owner who loses a boat wants to know that his captain did everything he could to avoid the loss, not just who is at fault and had to pay.
An interesting ethical question that comes to mind is, is there an obligation to warn of a problem if you are not an interested party? If your boat is anchored in a safe area, but, as you row past a pair of anchored boats that seem eminent for conflict, do you have an obligation to speak up?
What if you watched someone toss out a fortress on short scope on a hard bottom and the jetty was just to leeward? Is there a legal obligation to say something?

My farther anchored near another boat who's captain watched him set full chain at 4:1, then he insisted that my father would drag and foul him if he didn't put out 7:1. My father assured the other Captain it would be fine and he would keep an eye on it. The first captain was very unsatisfied with the response. If my father had dragged, what could the other captain, the one who was there first, have done? Considering that a standard for chain scope was met, is it unreasonable to point out, that 7:1 would have prevented the fouling and that an experienced captain had been warned?
Suddenly, the warning, where no reason to believe a problem should exist, creates a condition of culpability.

- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[thinwater]

Nope, I did not see his post.

Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903 (in part)
"A ‘safe berth‘ should not be construed to mean one from which probable accident might not arise, but ample space; that is, taking into consideration all the exigencies likely to arise, either by reason of the character of the harbor, the conditions of the weather, and the season of the year, no danger of collision would arise, and close calculations should not be made, and risks run in giving room; doubts should be solved with a view of securing safety, having in view the possible contingencies that might arise, making it necessary for each vessel to take greater space than was apparently required at the moment; and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion."

This makes a lot more sense to me. The "warning" obligation seemed unwieldy at best. It also seems rational that the obligation to keep clear must always lie with later arrivals for a number of reasons, none of which involve courtesy.

• Weather. Raising anchor once it starts to blow can be nearly impossible and certainly not safe. Having an anchor watch is one thing. Actually being able to do anything in the peak of a storm is another.
  
• In many bottoms, an anchor that has set over time is more secure than a newly placed anchor (this has been tested for anchors from a few pounds to many tons); the first boat may not be able to re-anchor safety with the tackle available.

And unless I'm reading it wrong, it also implies that leaving some room for dragging may be included in the obligation.

As for any assumption about how much scope is required and whether a "standard" has been met, I've see enough and read enough threads and research documents to know that no such standard exists. Too many variables. If the boat drags, the answer is that something was not enough.

The tricky part, to me, is whether the last clause ("and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion.") limits the ruling at all if anchorage is crowded, particularly if it is a situation that is generally known to be crowded.

 

[SG]

Are recreational boats in inland waters in the U.S. subject to Admiralty Law while anchoring in designated anchorages?; or, in non-designated anchorages, for that matter?

 

[Will Gilmore]

It also seems rational that the obligation to keep clear must always lie with later arrivals for a number of reasons, none of which involve courtesy.

Absolutely, also, for the sake of civility, as opposed to courtesy. Meaning, if a civilisation is to exist at all, no one should be able to arrive and force someone else out. While there may be an obligation to bring the dangers of a situation to someone's attention. The burden of action should always remain on the shoulders of the offender rather than the offended.

- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[SG]

\

 

[Kings Gambit]

The best general reference I've now found on this subject of anchoring and Admiralty law is the text The American Law of Collision by J.W. Griffin, LL.B., 1949, Hecla Press, New York, New York. I refer to Chapter X, Sec. 155, Foul Berth. He cites the Juniata case (124 Fed. 861) and reports it as I did above in Post #1, plus adds some review of later cases, to wit: "If a foul berth is given, then the later comer is liable (p. 369)." On the matter of giving notice: "The fact that the vessel first anchored makes no complaint, after reasonable time and opportunity, of the proximity of the other, is some evidence that the latter has not given a foul berth (p. 369)."

I also finally tracked down the citation attributed to the Pardeys, also given in my post #1, by an author at the e-publication News From the Bow, in a 2010 review of Lin & Larry Pardey's 3rd edition of Capable Cruiser. I could not get my hands on the 3rd edition w/o buying a copy, but found the same text referenced in a library copy of their 1st edition (1987)--p. 309. The 12th edition of Modern Seamanship by Knight, 1956, is cited, but the 12th edition was published in 1953; the 13th edition in 1960. However, the pagination cited in Capable Cruiser proved correct for the 12th edition of Knight.

Thus, the corresponding text from the 12th edition (1953) of Knight p. 310 actually reads: [The] anchored vessel may...be found in fault if she ... (h) anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging (Juniata 124 F 861); (i) fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. The vessel which anchored first should warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former's berth. But just to reiterate, the above text is not an actual part of the Juniata decision's text; it is a recap.

So, there we have it--again! If a vessel comes to anchor so near to you as to likely foul your berth with any change of conditions and that fact is known to you, there exists an evident obligation to so warn the late comer.

 

[SG]

Thanks, King[']s Gambit.

Question: In most anchorages, say in Inland Waters, what rules govern for recreational vessels Admiralty law?

 

[Will Gilmore]

Thanks, King[']s Gambit.

Question: In most anchorages, say in Inland Waters, what rules govern for recreational vessels Admiralty law?

I couldn't speak for outside the US, but most, if not all, inland waters are governed by the states in which they exist, except where the body of water is controlled by the federal government. There are even local (county and city) regulations all over Florida that address such issues. Privately controlled anchorages my have their own regulations. Be prepared to familiarize yourself with all of them. As a general rule of thumb, though certainly not in all cases, the regulations around local, state and even national maritime law are often modeled upon the regulations previously established by International law as well as neighboring states and national regulations. That is to say, most local rules tend to reflect other local and national rules. However, where a local entity has chosen to specify their own regs, you may find important differences, so you can't always be sure you are compliant by following the broader standards.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Kings Gambit]

Thanks, King[']s Gambit.

Question: In most anchorages, say in Inland Waters, what rules govern for recreational vessels Admiralty law?

There's the whole set ColRegs for Inland Waterways that ultimately has been established via combinations of statutes and decisions of the Admiralty courts; so I'd say generally, yes.

 

[JamesG161]

After being an "Expert Witness" in Federal and State District Courts [USA], I have learned one thing about Judges in cases of Liability. The Judges have made this point often...

Who has the Duty to Perform?

Duty to perform may or may not be defined by the Statutes. If not Statute defined, Judges rely on common sense and/or "chain of events" and of course "The Truth".

Judges are supposedly trained experts on the Statutes. I am not.
By the requirements of keeping a copy of COLREGS aboard my boat, I can be declared knowledgeable.

So...
If all else fails...

USE COMMON SENSE!

Jim...

PS: I am not an expert on COLREGS!

 

[Kings Gambit]

There's nothing in the ColRegs about leaving adequate room to swing for a boat already at anchor when the second boat arrives. If there were, we wouldn't need all of this investigation. As there is no statute some skippers will arrive and drop too near you, or even moor via bow-stern anchors inside your radius, sometimes close inside, and then make the ridiculous comment that there's no law (= statute) that says they cannot if you ask, or demand, that they move away, etc. In one extreme example I was told by the newcomer to drop my own stern anchor if I was so bothered. Others have simply ignored repeated requests. Some folks evidently see leaving adequate room as a matter of "etiquette" among sailors rather than an actual "requirement" of Admiralty Law. In the end, however, it comes into play only if there is a collision involved and someone has to be faulted and pay the consequences.

 

[Kermit]

Then there’s the requirement of avoiding a mishap if possible. So it sounds like if the second anchorer refuses to avoid the potential mishap then the first anchorer is required to avoid it. Circular reasoning but that’s what I’ve taken away from reading about such things.
One other thing I’ve surmised is that the person who makes a tremendous amount of money will always be held responsible in the public’s eye. Especially if the media pushes it. I could probably find a locally-published newspaper article if anyone is interested.

 

[JamesG161]

One other thing I’ve surmised is that the person who makes a tremendous amount of money will always be held responsible in the public’s eye.

Yep and a reason to avoid a Jury Trial. Judges go through so many cases, but a jury usually just one.
If you ever have the problem, Avoid an emotional jury.

For the 2nd time in SBO history @Kermit showed in his post#13...
Common Sense!

Jim...

 

[Will Gilmore]

Yep and a reason to avoid a Jury Trial. Judges go through so many cases, but a jury usually just one.
If you ever have the problem, Avoid an emotional jury.

Unless you are the poor man who's rights were walked all over by the self-important and entitled mega-rich industrialist. Then, you want that jury trial

- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Kermit]

Unless you are the poor man who's rights were walked all over by the self-important and entitled mega-rich industrialist. Then, you want that jury trial

- Will (Dragonfly)

Unless the man of very little means was clearly at fault while boating under the influence. And the drunk water skier he was pulling got killed. At night. When water skiing is *CLEARLY* not allowed. Even if sober.

 

[Kermit]

For the 2nd time in SBO history @Kermit showed in his post#13...
Common Sense!

I don’t know. You’re gonna have to prove it’s not the first. I’m sure everyone will it agree common sense dictates proof of that statement.

 

[Meriachee]

I don’t know. You’re gonna have to prove it’s not the first. I’m sure everyone will it agree common sense dictates proof of that statement.

Where you gonna find: " a locally-published newspaper article" Those things still exist?

 

[thinwater]

... In one extreme example I was told by the newcomer to drop my own stern anchor if I was so bothered. Others have simply ignored repeated requests....

I wonder if that could ever be construed as an action you could have taken. Not sayin', just musing.

My counter argument would be that if I expected wind from the beam, having bow and stern anchors out is well know to be poor seamanship.
---
Ye, I've been thumped in the night several times. In each case the person arrived after dark, I put fenders out (no where to go), and each time they didn't notice and didn't acknowledge. I now avoid that harbor (Chesapeake City).

 

[Kermit]

Where you gonna find: " a locally-published newspaper article" Those things still exist?

I’ll look for it. It happened several years ago and published at theitem.com. My across the street neighbor was raked over the coals for his income and he wasn’t even driving.