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."
"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."
Last edited: