Who is the Master?

[Roger Long]

The march against the long tradition of the sea continues. There have been some court cases in the U.S. tending this way but I just learned that it is official in Canada. The “operator” of a recreational vessel is the person holding the wheel; not the owner or other person we would consider the master. If you let a guest take the wheel and say “Head towards that buoy.”, they become the “Master” until you have your hands back on the wheel again. This muddies a lot of issues and makes it unfair to let your guests steer without advising them of the risks. Some fast powerboat T-bones you, their smart lawyer finds a way to try and make it your fault, and the guest could find themselves defending the suit. Same thing could happen if you make a legitimate mistake, like telling the guest to steer into shoal water. Even though you are willing to step up and take responsibility, if the guest has deeper pockets, someone (maybe even your own insurance company) could go after them as the “operator”.

I just got a response from the Transport Canada Office of Boating Safety to an email asking for clarification about their Recreational Vessel Operator card.

“if your vessel operates in Canadian waters for 45 consecutive days or more, anyone steering your vessel must also have proof of competency. “

This applies to the vessel so anyone joining you after day 45 would need to have a card if you want to let them steer without being subject to a $250.00 fine if spotted and boarded. Any Canadian who might join you for a daysail would also not be able to steer legally although they could have the day before.

While this probably makes sense for fast outboards on crowed inland waterways, it’s another one size fits all concept chipping away at the cruising as we know it. It’s also counter safety since being able to attend to things other than the helm, like navigating and look out, can let the master of a cruising vessel operate more safely. There is also the fatigue issue.

Now, if I engage the wind vane or autopilot and tell my un-carded crew to stay away from the wheel and just let me know if another vessel gets close while I check navigation or take a leak, are they “operating”? Does my wind vane need an operators card?

 

[Winkfish]

There is a difference between an "operator" of a recreational boat and a "master" of a vessel as used in maritime cases. I haven't looked at the line of cases you're talking about, but I think the distinction is a good one. I don't think there's a big shift underway in maritime law.

One way to look at it is like DWI. It used to apply to operators of "motor vehicles," which did not include boats. Now in most states there's a separate law making it a crime to operate a boat while intoxicated, or specifically including boats in the definition of motor vehicles. Not so much a "maritime" issue as addressing a more local problem.

Louisiana also has a law that anyone (born after a certain date) operating a motor vessel must have a boater safety course card. I think it's a good thing, and I don't think it takes away anything from the traditional maritime concepts of "master of a vessel."

 

[kloudie1]

Hazlewood and the Exxon Valdez .. He was the guy that took the hit professionally.. ExxMob took the pocketbook hit.. the dude at the wheel..?? We don't know..

 

[Roger Long]

Hazlewood and the Exxon Valdez ..

I was on a non-profit board with three tanker captains not long after accident and they all knew Hazlewood. To a man, they said it could have easily happened to them. One of them related what Haxlewood said to him, something along the lines of, "Sheesh, you would think you could trust a licensed mate you had sailed with for months to steer a straight course down a channel he had negotiated several times without suddenly turning 90 degrees for reasons I still don't understand."

He was the Master and he accepted the responsibility that went with the position.

 

[Warren Milberg]

Stuff happens

I hate to think of the number of times I offered the helm of my boat to inexperienced quests or their children. In all these cases, I was near enough to the helm to resume control if need be. Yet, if some kind of incident occurred while they had their hands on the wheel, I suppose they would have been just as responsible as if I handed over the wheel of my moving car to them. Yet as the legal owner of the vessel, I think I would ultimately have been legally and morally responsible, as well.

Unfortunately, we live in litigious times. Be careful out there; stuff happens.

 

[Roger Long]

I hate to think of the number of times I offered the helm of my boat to inexperienced quests or their children.

If anything happens, it should be 100% your fault just as it was on the Exxon Valdez. Part of your responsibility as owner/master is to assess the conditions and the skill of the helmsman.

 

[Roger Long]

I just heard from a Canadian on another forum who said:

I'm afraid I can't access the regulations pursuant to the Pleasure craft operator's card at the moment, but I do have the Interpretation section of the CSA 2001 before me, and it still defines master as "the person in command and charge of a vessel." and vessel includes pleasure craft.

To which I replied:

That is reassuring and would justify a change in my OP. It would be nice to see something on the Office of Boating Safety site pointing out that there is such a thing as a master and it should always be clear to everyone on board who is in overall charge. I've know of accidents that happened while someone was saying, "Hey chill, I'm steering now dude." If Canada wants to require that every person who steers have a card, that's fine (although a bit inconvenient) for me; just as long as they are not becoming responsible for my boat.

 

[kenn]

Hi Roger,

I don't think that the Canadian PCOC "card" requirement for vessel operation is the same as saying "whoever's steering is Master". I would also suspect that there's some sort of allowance for uncarded students in training, as long as they're supervised.

The PCOC card is only proof that someone was able to memorize the boating safety facts contained in a 30-page pamphlet, for long enough to pass a test. I don't expect that the card alone would ever be taken as anything more than a baseline measure of boating safety knowledge, especially in a legal context.

I guess we won't know for sure til it's tested in court.

 

[Seattle Scott]

If you have liability insurance it covers the "named" insured - the people paying for the insurance and anyone operating your boat with your permission. So with insurance in place it doesn't matter that a liablity claim is made against the guest holding the wheel - he/she will be insured.

 

[Dan Johnson]

Uh...

“if your vessel operates in Canadian waters for 45 consecutive days or more, anyone steering your vessel must also have proof of competency. “

Does that mean that my autopilot must have "proof of competency", or, because it isn't an "anyone", does that mean that I can't engage it in when visiting Canadian waters?

Damn, I can't wait for Spring to save us of these ponderances...

 

[stephen Penny]

My Boat US policy names me as the captain and therefore, I am responsible. I just added a friend as a "privileged sailor” who can captain it when I am not sailing on it, albeit I am still responsible.

 

[Roger Long]

if the master does not monitor or guide the helms-person, then he-she is not performing as Master

I think this is the heart of the issue. When someone is manipulating the wheel of my boat, except for dodging lobster pots and trimming for windshifts close hauled, I'm still "steering". I continue to navigate, tell them what landmark to steer for, etc. I might let them decide whether to pass ahead or behind of another vessel but I'm checking the decision. I basically remain in the same frame of mind as when the autopilot is on and I'm sitting with the remote button in my hand. If we get into a situation where I don't think the person can react to verbal commands fast enough for potential problems, either due to traffic proximity and complexity or their skill level, I take the helm.

I started the thread forgetting that, in a world where only about half of boaters even know the rules of the road, very few of them are doing a more competent job of watch keeping while guests steer than they do of steering themselves. The law is moving towards recognizing a sad reality. Boats are being generally handled like cars even though they shouldn't be. Most owners who have turned over the wheel have turned over control of the boat as well. A lot of them didn't have very competent control even when the wheel was in their hands.

What I would like to see in boater law and education is inclusion of the concept that one person should always be in charge of the vessel and fully responsible for the vessel's course and operation, including tasks carried out by other. This is handled well in aviation. Even though two pilots may hand the controls back and forth, one is always Pilot In Command. I'd often go out for a friend for a $100 hamburger and we'd says something like, "I'll be PIC on the way up and you be PIC on the way back." I flew a club plane with many owners. With boats, and owner on board would be the "PIC" except in cases such as where someone has been hired to operate the vessel.

 

[RichH]

The issue that you bring up is not about master, temporary helmsman or even 'responsibility'.
The issue is and the one that leads to most civil law conflict hence 'imbalance' is (Im afraid to state such at the risk of being deemed 'political') ...... the unbridled pursuit of contingency fees and billable hours.

In current civil law when there is any, even remote, possibility of one party having 'deeper pockets' (in this particular instance, targeting the master's insurance carrier) than the 'other the side' it is no longer a pursuit of 'justice' but most unfortunately simply a naked frenetic opportunistic pursuit to 'win all' and $$$$$ -- Opportunistic GREED by the legal industry.

So, the real issue probably remains, not maritime law nor long established custom, but how much potential $$$ in any settlement or award. This is what is seemingly driving the majority of ALL 'civil law' and the attempted reasonable solution would be TORT REFORM. If there wasnt such egregious 'profit' in the pursuit of awards and settlement in 'civil law', then civil law would be at least a protection and modulator for ALL involved. Until such corrections are made .... no ones 'rights' (other than the 'shysters') will be protected under *current* civil law.

Simple speak: Its the TRIAL-SHYSTERS unbridled contingency fees and billable hours which is driving this INSANITY. The impetus that drives civil law is no longer 'justice' but the transfer of $$$$$ hence PROFIT for the shysters.