I suspect you posted it yesterday. Many of us did not read it. It was the New Year, after all. And this board's annual rollover bug wiped out your answer.
- Status
The Answer to the Rules "Test"
Here's how the legal beagles called it: There are 6 elements/Rules at work in this scenario: The first is the "first rule of boating:" Always maintain a proper lookout. By abandoning his helm to turn off and raise his outboard, the sailboat failed to do that. The powerboat did maintain a proper lookout, as was demonstrated by its efforts to avoid the collision. The second: he failed to maintain control of his vessel. The rules don't require anyone to physically be on the helm...he could have lashed his tiller or--more properly, he should have headed up to raise sai (It's because the wind will catch the sail and send the boat--literally--wherever the wind blows it that sailboats DO head up to raise and drop sail). The powerboat was under control and moving at a safe speed for the conditions. The third: The sailboat was to port, and under power, making it the give-way vessel. He failed give way to powerboat, which was the stand-on vessel. The powerboat acted correctly: it was the stand-on vessel, it proceeded on the assumption that the give-way vessel would give way until the give-way vessel made it obvious that it wasn't going to. The fourth: The Rules require both the give-way and the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed in a crossing or passing situation until both vessels are completely clear of each other. The sailboat failed to do that. That he raised sail in the midst of the crossing makes no difference--you can't change the "rules of the game" once "the game"--in this case, a crossing or passing situation--has started. The powerboat acted correctly, maintaining course and speed until forced to do otherwise. The fifith: The Rules require both the stand-on and the give-way vessel to do everything possible to avoid collision. The sailboat did nothing to avoid the collision. The powerboat acted correctly--it took prompt and evasive action as soon as the danger of collision became apparent. The sixth: The Rules require that a "danger" signal of 5 short horn blasts be given when the danger of collision exists. Both vessels failed to do this. Had a collision occurred, the maritime judge (who btw was a customer of ours at the time--that's how happened to know one) would have first divided 100% by the six Rules involved, which would assign 16.666% of the fault to the powerboat for failing to sound a warning, the remaining 83.333% to sailboat. However, when weighting that against the other Rules violations, he would reduce the powerboat's responsibility to 10%, and he declared that it would be unlikely that the powerboat would have to bear any of the financial burden for damages or injury. I objected to being assigned ANY of the fault, on the grounds that in the time available I had a choice of either blowing the horn or doing everything possible to avoid to the collision--'cuz both hands were on the throttles and the shifters, and I couldn't reach the horn button on the dash with my nose. My objection was overruled.
Here's how the legal beagles called it: There are 6 elements/Rules at work in this scenario: The first is the "first rule of boating:" Always maintain a proper lookout. By abandoning his helm to turn off and raise his outboard, the sailboat failed to do that. The powerboat did maintain a proper lookout, as was demonstrated by its efforts to avoid the collision. The second: he failed to maintain control of his vessel. The rules don't require anyone to physically be on the helm...he could have lashed his tiller or--more properly, he should have headed up to raise sai (It's because the wind will catch the sail and send the boat--literally--wherever the wind blows it that sailboats DO head up to raise and drop sail). The powerboat was under control and moving at a safe speed for the conditions. The third: The sailboat was to port, and under power, making it the give-way vessel. He failed give way to powerboat, which was the stand-on vessel. The powerboat acted correctly: it was the stand-on vessel, it proceeded on the assumption that the give-way vessel would give way until the give-way vessel made it obvious that it wasn't going to. The fourth: The Rules require both the give-way and the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed in a crossing or passing situation until both vessels are completely clear of each other. The sailboat failed to do that. That he raised sail in the midst of the crossing makes no difference--you can't change the "rules of the game" once "the game"--in this case, a crossing or passing situation--has started. The powerboat acted correctly, maintaining course and speed until forced to do otherwise. The fifith: The Rules require both the stand-on and the give-way vessel to do everything possible to avoid collision. The sailboat did nothing to avoid the collision. The powerboat acted correctly--it took prompt and evasive action as soon as the danger of collision became apparent. The sixth: The Rules require that a "danger" signal of 5 short horn blasts be given when the danger of collision exists. Both vessels failed to do this. Had a collision occurred, the maritime judge (who btw was a customer of ours at the time--that's how happened to know one) would have first divided 100% by the six Rules involved, which would assign 16.666% of the fault to the powerboat for failing to sound a warning, the remaining 83.333% to sailboat. However, when weighting that against the other Rules violations, he would reduce the powerboat's responsibility to 10%, and he declared that it would be unlikely that the powerboat would have to bear any of the financial burden for damages or injury. I objected to being assigned ANY of the fault, on the grounds that in the time available I had a choice of either blowing the horn or doing everything possible to avoid to the collision--'cuz both hands were on the throttles and the shifters, and I couldn't reach the horn button on the dash with my nose. My objection was overruled.
That's not why sailboats head up
Thanks for the answer, Peggie. I didn't list the rule about making a signal, and I didn't realize that maintaining control of the vessel is an explicit rule. Though it makes sense that it is. I DID fault the sailboat for not having a watch. In most collisions, the first thing to ask is: Who wasn't paying attention. You write, "It's because the wind will catch the sail and send the boat --literally -- wherever the wind blows it that sailboats DO head up to raise and drop sail." That's not really the reason. You can control a boat quite well while a sail is raised or dropped. If you don't believe this, watch any sailboat race at the upwind mark or downwind marks. Even when not racing, a lot of sail changes are made without heading up. The reason we head up when raising or lowering the main, and sometimes the genoa, is to keep the SAIL under control. If you're not into the wind, the SAIL will blow sideways off the boom, making a mess, obscuring the helm's view, and likely getting caught up against something. Such as lazyjacks.
Thanks for the answer, Peggie. I didn't list the rule about making a signal, and I didn't realize that maintaining control of the vessel is an explicit rule. Though it makes sense that it is. I DID fault the sailboat for not having a watch. In most collisions, the first thing to ask is: Who wasn't paying attention. You write, "It's because the wind will catch the sail and send the boat --literally -- wherever the wind blows it that sailboats DO head up to raise and drop sail." That's not really the reason. You can control a boat quite well while a sail is raised or dropped. If you don't believe this, watch any sailboat race at the upwind mark or downwind marks. Even when not racing, a lot of sail changes are made without heading up. The reason we head up when raising or lowering the main, and sometimes the genoa, is to keep the SAIL under control. If you're not into the wind, the SAIL will blow sideways off the boom, making a mess, obscuring the helm's view, and likely getting caught up against something. Such as lazyjacks.
Re heading up...
I put that comment in parenthesis to indicate it was my opinion, not hizzoner's. However, it does seem to me that, while the sail is more at risk on larger boat if not headed up to raise and lower sail, unless someone is on the helm of a smaller boat (and more small boats than large are singlehanded), both the sail and the boat are likely to behave somewhat unpredictably.
I put that comment in parenthesis to indicate it was my opinion, not hizzoner's. However, it does seem to me that, while the sail is more at risk on larger boat if not headed up to raise and lower sail, unless someone is on the helm of a smaller boat (and more small boats than large are singlehanded), both the sail and the boat are likely to behave somewhat unpredictably.
With respect . . .
Having just finished spending this semester studying admiralty as one of the focuses of my legal edumacation, I think a district court judge would have assesed liability differently. Under traditional maritime law, pursuant to a case called The Pennsylvania, a vessel that violates a rule in a situation that results in a collision must show not only that that violation did not cause the collision, but also that it could not have caused the collision. This case is followed in some Circuits and not in others, so the result could varry depending on where the case was brought. In a jurisdicition still using the Pennsylvania rule, if the power boat was 10% at fault, then there could be no recovery. Terrible result, I think, but possible under our archaic maritime law. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
Having just finished spending this semester studying admiralty as one of the focuses of my legal edumacation, I think a district court judge would have assesed liability differently. Under traditional maritime law, pursuant to a case called The Pennsylvania, a vessel that violates a rule in a situation that results in a collision must show not only that that violation did not cause the collision, but also that it could not have caused the collision. This case is followed in some Circuits and not in others, so the result could varry depending on where the case was brought. In a jurisdicition still using the Pennsylvania rule, if the power boat was 10% at fault, then there could be no recovery. Terrible result, I think, but possible under our archaic maritime law. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
If I followed you correctly, Justin...
The failure of the powerboat to sound a warning didn't cause collision, sounding a warning instead of taking immediate evasive action could not have caused OR prevented a collision. In fact, taking prompt evasive action instead of blowing the horn is what prevented the collision--literally by inches. He crossed in front of me so close that I'd almost swear that my anchor on the end of my bow pulpit was inside his starboard lifeline. No matter how well you know the Rules, when you're focused on saving your aft, you don't even THINK about the Rules...only about what you can do that's most likely to save it--or at least minimize the damage. When the choice is either maintaining course and speed as the stand-on vessel while blowing the horn or taking immediate evasive action, it would never even occur to anyone in his right mind to blow the horn! So I think the powerboat's failure to sound a warning meets the "Pennsylvania" standard as you describe it: the failure to do so didn't cause a collision... it could not have caused a collision. But sounding a warning instead of taking evasive would have failed the "Pensylvania" test on both criteria--'cuz failing to take evasive action would have been a much bigger contributing factor to a collision than failing to blow a horn. I think to really understand how the quickly the situation changed from "no problem" to "oh $#*!," you had to be there. And it also helps if you understand that, contrary to many sailors' opinion, a powerboat is NOT as maneuverable as a car...not even close. A full throttle--enough to rev a pair of 340hp engines to over 4000 rpms--reverse from just 4-5k of forward motion wasn't enough to do more than bring the boat to ALMOST a full stop...not enough to completely stop it, much less begin to back it up. That much power wouldn't have accelerated the boat foward fast enough to do more than change the point of impact from the port beam to the port quarter--MAYBE the swim platform. And a turn to starboard would have had about the same result. Big powerboats don't accelerate quickly at all...it's about like putting your foot to the floor from a standing start at the bottom of a steep hill--if THAT good.
The failure of the powerboat to sound a warning didn't cause collision, sounding a warning instead of taking immediate evasive action could not have caused OR prevented a collision. In fact, taking prompt evasive action instead of blowing the horn is what prevented the collision--literally by inches. He crossed in front of me so close that I'd almost swear that my anchor on the end of my bow pulpit was inside his starboard lifeline. No matter how well you know the Rules, when you're focused on saving your aft, you don't even THINK about the Rules...only about what you can do that's most likely to save it--or at least minimize the damage. When the choice is either maintaining course and speed as the stand-on vessel while blowing the horn or taking immediate evasive action, it would never even occur to anyone in his right mind to blow the horn! So I think the powerboat's failure to sound a warning meets the "Pennsylvania" standard as you describe it: the failure to do so didn't cause a collision... it could not have caused a collision. But sounding a warning instead of taking evasive would have failed the "Pensylvania" test on both criteria--'cuz failing to take evasive action would have been a much bigger contributing factor to a collision than failing to blow a horn. I think to really understand how the quickly the situation changed from "no problem" to "oh $#*!," you had to be there. And it also helps if you understand that, contrary to many sailors' opinion, a powerboat is NOT as maneuverable as a car...not even close. A full throttle--enough to rev a pair of 340hp engines to over 4000 rpms--reverse from just 4-5k of forward motion wasn't enough to do more than bring the boat to ALMOST a full stop...not enough to completely stop it, much less begin to back it up. That much power wouldn't have accelerated the boat foward fast enough to do more than change the point of impact from the port beam to the port quarter--MAYBE the swim platform. And a turn to starboard would have had about the same result. Big powerboats don't accelerate quickly at all...it's about like putting your foot to the floor from a standing start at the bottom of a steep hill--if THAT good.
- Status