Right of way for boat under oars?
William G. Graves
oars" from the hierarchy of rights of way. Anyone know how a boat powered
by oars should be treated. Do I dodge them or hail them (Of course, I know
I have an absolute duty to avoid collisions!).
thanks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Graves
bgr...@ix.netcom.com
Kari Rissanen
group of glogg swilling fur coated ruffians...prepare to be baorded !
or is that byorded ?
Anyway.....me a my mates are getting together to recreate the "oyld days" of
our viking forbearers.
Only in "nice weather" of course!
Trust me...you don't want to see ANYTHING in the bilge's of a viking
longboat...even if it is powered by an "infernal combustion engine" in lieu of
oars.
The sail is purely decorative......sigh! 8-)
Hey Olaf!...where's the goatskin ?......What .....no more GLOGG!
Return to port....WE"RE OUT OF SUPPLIES!
Pillaging just isn't what it used to be ?
You wouldn't happen to have "GLOGG" on your boat ...would you ?
(we are "polite" vikings after all! 8-)
Gould 0738
>I see that the last few revisions of the COLREGs have dropped "boat under
>oars" from the hierarchy of rights of way. Anyone know how a boat powered
>by oars should be treated. Do I dodge them or hail them (Of course, I know
>I have an absolute duty to avoid collisions!).
>
>thanks
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Bill Graves
>bgr...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
They dropped manually powered boats (oars or paddles)?
How bizarre.
When meeting a manually powered boat, a
sail or power vessel is the "give way" vessel and the rowboat, canoe, kayak, or
whatever is the "stand on" vessel.At least that's how the old grey matter
recalls it.
(A boat under sail or motorized power may well be more able to avoid the
collision than some poor sot rowing against the tide...so common sense applies
as well)
Since all rowboats and canoes are under 60' in length, they join the rest of us
mortals with the constriction against impeding commercial vessels or vessels
constrained by draft.
________
Chuck Gould
Float and let float.
edgar cove
>
>They dropped manually powered boats (oars or paddles)?
>
>How bizarre.
>
>When meeting a manually powered boat, a
>sail or power vessel is the "give way" vessel and the rowboat, canoe, kayak, or
>whatever is the "stand on" vessel.At least that's how the old grey matter
>recalls it.
>
>(A boat under sail or motorized power may well be more able to avoid the
>collision than some poor sot rowing against the tide...so common sense applies
>as well)
>
>Since all rowboats and canoes are under 60' in length, they join the rest of us
>
>mortals with the constriction against impeding commercial vessels or vessels
>constrained by draft.
>
>________
>Chuck Gould
>
>Float and let float.
An 8-oared racing shell is not only longer than 60' but will be
travelling at speeds prohibited to powered vessels in most harbours and
rivers, so somewhere along the line common sense has to prevail over the
rulebook
--
edgar (remove nospam from return address for e-mail reply)
Joel Furtek
<ed...@nospam.coves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Since all rowboats and canoes are under 60' in length, they join the rest of
> >us
> >
> >mortals with the constriction against impeding commercial vessels or vessels
> >constrained by draft.
> >
> >________
> >Chuck Gould
> >
> >Float and let float.
>
> An 8-oared racing shell is not only longer than 60' but will be
> travelling at speeds prohibited to powered vessels in most harbours and
> rivers, so somewhere along the line common sense has to prevail over the
> rulebook
Most of our racing shells top out at about 58 feet, I imagine there are
some about that are 60-ish, but I'm not aware of any significantly over
that figure.
Top speed for a men's eight-oared shell is around 13.5 mph.
In my days as a coxswain, when rowing in the Tampa shipping channels we
yielded right of way to commercial vessels and boats under sail on the
premise that we were more maneuverable.
Joel Furtek
Head Coach, UNC-Chapel Hill Women's Rowing
Jim Donohue
duties thereof. Human power boats have no let out with respect to right of
way.
Jim
William G. Graves <bgr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:85d307$mnd$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
Charlie Mayne
>>>
>>
>>They dropped manually powered boats (oars or paddles)?
>>
...
>An 8-oared racing shell is not only longer than 60' but will be
>travelling at speeds prohibited to powered vessels in most harbours and
>rivers, so somewhere along the line common sense has to prevail over the
>rulebook
So, are manually powered (i.e., paddled) craft now the same as powerboats
as far as determining right of way?
Totally confused,
Charlie
CS30 "Sprite"
--
Charlie Mayne | Motorola Incorporated
char...@risc.sps.mot.com | Microprocessor Products Group
| Austin, Texas 78735-8598
"I am concerned about my memory. But, for the life of me, I can't recall why."
nonyabusiness
but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "last few revisions"
of the rules in regards to the steering precedence of vessels
underway.
Vessels under oars have certainly not been in rule 3 or rule 18
since 1971 (the earliest I could find). Do you have an earlier cite
that actually has vessels under oars in rule 18?
They are mentioned in rule 25 (d)(ii) regarding lights and are still
there to this day.
Vessels under oars are treated like any other vessel.
If they are overtaking, they are the give-way vessel. If you are
overtaking them, you are the give-way vessel.
Otherwise, simply avoid them (since the meeting and crossing rules
apply exclusively to power-driven vessels in a situation that involves
risk of collision).
John...
Gould 0738
>An 8-oared racing shell is not only longer than 60' but will be
>travelling at speeds prohibited to powered vessels in most harbours and
>rivers, so somewhere along the line common sense has to prevail over the
>rulebook
>--
Golly, this *is* confusing. My reference to "rowboats and canoes" is refuted
with an
"8-oared racing shell"? Another exception proving the rule? Or do you mean to
say that when there is a sanctioned race underway (as there would be when most
8 oared shells were out and about) that has an effect on nav rules.
Even so, we'd all have to yield way to manually powered boats. And that 8 oared
shell will know much better than to scull in front of a moving container
ship...over 60 feet or not. :-)
Bill Hagood
Dayton, Ohio, 8 man racing shells have been a normal and daily fact of life.
As the power boat, and the one that could turn much better, I have always
given way to them. Of course some times when they were racing down the
river on one side and up the river on the other, I wondered if I had any
"right-of-way" at all. These were practice, not "sanctioned" races.I think
all of us would be better off if we acted on the principal of "when in
doubt, give way." I never had a customer complain about this.
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
news:20000111220044...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Spad
> Excuse me, Bill,
> but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "last few revisions"
> of the rules in regards to the steering precedence of vessels
> underway.
>
> Vessels under oars have certainly not been in rule 3 or rule 18
> since 1971 (the earliest I could find). Do you have an earlier cite
> that actually has vessels under oars in rule 18?
> They are mentioned in rule 25 (d)(ii) regarding lights and are still
> there to this day.
>
> Vessels under oars are treated like any other vessel.
> If they are overtaking, they are the give-way vessel. If you are
> overtaking them, you are the give-way vessel.
>
> Otherwise, simply avoid them (since the meeting and crossing rules
> apply exclusively to power-driven vessels in a situation that involves
> risk of collision).
>
> John...
This is an excellent reply. Notice that no mention is made of "right of way" because there is no
such thing. There is actually only "stand on" and "give way" vessels as John so accurately
describes.
A good rule of thumb is "Tonnage has right of way". You might also consider Rule 9 that gives
vessels that, for reason for their draft, must remain in a marked channel stand on status over all
others. Because this is often something like an aircraft carrier, to dispute this point with a
rowing shell is illegal, stupid, and bound to increase the average IQ of humans. Natural selection
processes rarely consider who is "right", but only who survives.
JES
Armond Perretta
> >
> > Vessels under oars are treated like any other vessel.
> > If they are overtaking, they are the give-way vessel. If you are
> > overtaking them, you are the give-way vessel.
> >
> > Otherwise, simply avoid them (since the meeting and crossing rules
> > apply exclusively to power-driven vessels in a situation that involves
> > risk of collision).
>
> way" because there is no such thing. There is actually only "stand
> on" and "give way" vessels as John so accurately describes.
>
> A good rule of thumb is "Tonnage has right of way".
This thread reminds me of an "incident" last summer that some readers may
find interesting. I was under sail on Frenchman's Bay (ME), heading
north in good visibility from Bar Harbor to Sorrento. The route follows
a narrow passage between the "porcupines," several small islands in the
Bay. As I approached the narrow passage, I noticed a "flock" of kayaks
heading east (from left to right) inside the narrow passage. They were
taking up most of the available water and appeared to be led by a
guide in the first kayak.
By the time I reached the passage itself all but one of the kayaks had
passed through. I had earlier turned slightly to port to allow sufficient
distance between Kerry Deare and the "flock," and it was
only then that I noticed that a single straggler, still in the passage,
might be a problem. I was certain that he had already noticed me and
would prefer not to tangle with 14,000 pounds of sailboat. I also
assumed he would merely stop paddling for 2 or 3 strokes and
that this action would allow safe passage for both vessels.
As it happened he continued to paddle and subsequently was directly ahead of
Kerry Deare at a critical moment. I turned to port and passed behind the
kayak and there was never an immediate danger. Frankly I was annoyed with
him, but since he was probably one of the "daytrippers" who rent kayaks out
of Bar Harbor and are not locally known for their seamanship, I calmed down
quickly. Nonetheless, upon reflection I could not find anything specific
in the rules on an incident of this type. Other than the General Prudential
Rule, of course.
Comments?
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat (remove 'BOAT')
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com
Jim Donohue
whether specifically called out in the Colregs or not. See for instance the
index of Chapman's or any of the USCG instructional books.
I happen to prefer the stand on / give way semantics - but, in the US at
least, it ain't taught that way.
The tonnage rule is the law of inertia. But again remember that, regardless
of the tonnage, the stand on vessel must stand on - at least until a
collision is imminent. There is no let out for tonnage. The rules of course
let you do anything you want as long as no risk of collision exists - so
mostly one stays far enough from large things to avoid having to worry about
it.
Jim
Spad <spa...@att.net> wrote in message news:387C9292...@att.net...
> nonyabusiness wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, Bill,
> > but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "last few revisions"
> > of the rules in regards to the steering precedence of vessels
> > underway.
> >
> > Vessels under oars have certainly not been in rule 3 or rule 18
> > since 1971 (the earliest I could find). Do you have an earlier cite
> > that actually has vessels under oars in rule 18?
> > They are mentioned in rule 25 (d)(ii) regarding lights and are still
> > there to this day.
> >
> > Vessels under oars are treated like any other vessel.
> > If they are overtaking, they are the give-way vessel. If you are
> > overtaking them, you are the give-way vessel.
> >
> > Otherwise, simply avoid them (since the meeting and crossing rules
> > apply exclusively to power-driven vessels in a situation that involves
> > risk of collision).
> >
> > John...
>
> This is an excellent reply. Notice that no mention is made of "right of
way" because there is no
> such thing. There is actually only "stand on" and "give way" vessels as
John so accurately
> describes.
>
Outnumbered
> This is I think a semantics argument - right-of-way certainly does exist,
> whether specifically called out in the Colregs or not. See for instance the
> index of Chapman's or any of the USCG instructional books.
>
> I happen to prefer the stand on / give way semantics - but, in the US at
> least, it ain't taught that way.
>
> The tonnage rule is the law of inertia. But again remember that, regardless
> of the tonnage, the stand on vessel must stand on - at least until a
> collision is imminent. There is no let out for tonnage. The rules of course
> let you do anything you want as long as no risk of collision exists - so
> mostly one stays far enough from large things to avoid having to worry about
> it.
>
<BG> And again, semantics rears it's ugly head......one no longer has to wait
(as the stand-on, vessel) until, "in extremis" or "collision is imminent" to
take action to avoid collision.
otn
nonyabusiness
Thank you for the compliment. Indeed, the rule of thumb that
tonnage has the right of way is not a rule of thumb, but it is in fact
the law. But first let me digress a little bit.
What most folks don't realize is that Admiralty law is distinguished
from normal "law" by several factors:
1) Admiralty jurisdiction is exclusively federal (in the US) per the
US Constitution. The US Supreme Court allows non-admiralty (state)
courts to decide admiralty claims under the "savings to suitors"
clause but they must apply substantive admiralty law. Practically, in
North Carolina, where I reside, it means that admiralty claims in
state courts must use comparative liability (each is liable based on
degree of fault) instead of contributory negligence (recovery is
barred if one is even 1% at fault). This scares the hell out of local
defense attorneys, I can assure you.
2) Admiralty law is basically judge made law. Many legal decisions
over many years have made their way back into statute. Substantive
admiralty law means proper admiralty law precedent (which is made by
courts).
3) Admiralty law is relatively uniform across the entire world. US
judges have no problem whatsoever with citing British or even French
court decisions (or anywhere else for that matter). (There are minor
differences in the laws and practice, but I don't know the
particulars).
4) In the US, there is no jury trial in Admiralty courts (which is
really any federal court sitting as a court in Admiralty [please, no
gold fringe flag nonsense]). The judges decide the case using legal
admiralty precedent, not common law. In other words, the standard of
proof is not usually the normal negligence claim (Paltzgraf
[spelling?}), but an Admiralty precedent which may have a very
different standard of proof and a very different result (e.g.
proportionate fault, no punitive damages awarded, no attorney's fees
awarded).
As an example, most folks believe that wake damage claims proceed
under a simple claim of negligence. Prior to 1971, wake damage cases
generally proceeded under negligence or under the good seamanship
rule. Now wake damage claims generally allege a safe speed rule
violation (Rule 6) which in fact codified the previous court decisions
prior to 1971. In some sense, this has made proof of wake damage
easier for plaintiffs - there are precedents with established
standards of care for vessels underway.
As to the tonnage has right of way issue - I quote the following:
"As a maritime fact of life, larger vessels such as the Texaco Ohio
are less maneuverable than smaller vessels and have greater difficulty
stopping once they are underway. As such, if large vessels were
required to stop and give way, under penalty of violating some rule of
the road, to every fishing vessel they may encounter, those larger
vessels would be virtually paralyzed in their movement. Accordingly,
it is almost certain that tankers and freighters, such as the Texaco
Ohio, will violate some statutory rules of the road in their almost
daily encounters with smaller fishing vessels such as the Little Chip.
...
The Little Chip, on the other hand, completely oblivious to its fate,
crossed in front of the Texaco Ohio. This was done despite the whistle
blasts of the Texaco Ohio and the warnings issued by the Delta. The
Little Chip, knowing the Texaco Ohio was near, nonetheless had all of
its hatches and portholes closed, failed to have a lookout and failed
to properly monitor its radio.
In view of such facts, the Court finds the Little Chip and the Texaco
Ohio 90% and 10% at fault, respectively, and hereby proportionately
allocates liability for damages among them accordingly." Jones v.
Texaco Panoma, Inc. 428 F.Supp. 1333.
So it seems that the common-sense rule of tonnage has indeed made its
way into maritime law.
Now, take all of this with a rather large grain of salt. I am not an
attorney. I do not even pretend to practice law. For legal advice,
consult an attorney. And to give credit where credit is due,
references and discussion of the above matters can be found in:
Law of Marine Collision - Healy and Sweeney - Cornell Maritime Press
Maritime Law Deskbook - Charles M. Davis - Compass Publishing Company
You can also look at the following web sites:
www.davismarine.com
www.healy.com
Fair winds,
John...
Jim Donohue
basically take on an increased portion of the liability. The rules really
still require that you manuever at extremis to avoid collision but you do it
earlier at your peril.
Jim
Outnumbered <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:387D56B0...@earthlink.net...
Jim Donohue
is likely that big ships will repeatedly violate the regulations. He did
not say that this was acceptable - merely practically unavoidable. I think
he is stating that the big ship will always be found less than faultless in
any crossing collision where it is not the stand on vessel.
Sounds like he found other violations by the smaller ship that he thought
more serious transgressions. From the excerpts listed that seems
reasonable.
Note that the big ship was found 10% at fault.
Jim
nonyabusiness <postm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:387d5055....@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
T Spragg
what transpired, it will come down to the last action taken by the last
person who could have avoided a collision. If Hse didn't do the right
thing, hse's responsible.
Of course, regardless of the fact that not every minuatae can be
expressly cited in every law, pedestrians always have the right of way,
especially at sea. If you don't believe me, just try running a few down
in the presence of witnesses.
Terry K
William G. Graves wrote:
>
> I see that the last few revisions of the COLREGs have dropped "boat under
> oars" from the hierarchy of rights of way. Anyone know how a boat powered
> by oars should be treated. Do I dodge them or hail them (Of course, I know
> I have an absolute duty to avoid collisions!).
>
> thanks
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Bill Graves
> bgr...@ix.netcom.com
--
Spamchok - Stop Spam!
Stop spam with Spamchok - it's free, ask!
ekvf...@ituagypuqn.net qlp...@jkqfdeoegch.com cm...@rldbmq.net
hxkoe...@sadlibvflut.com wfaxd...@xqruoa.net asx...@lfsotayue.net
fr...@edmlna.net qt...@kglahrbpakl.net vj...@iusyik.com maqe...@yx.org
yq...@vyttvtjloso.net Terry K
Charlie Mayne
>... pedestrians always have the right of way,
>especially at sea. If you don't believe me, just try running a few down
>in the presence of witnesses.
If I saw a pedestrian at sea, I wouldn't run him down: it might be Christ.
That would look bad in court no matter what.
Cheers,
nonyabusiness
I'm posting the entire (Jones v. Texaco Panama) decision here against
my better judgement in the hopes that it will lead some to seek some
instruction as to the rules. (An old quote about leading a horse to
water comes to mind).
Neverthless, the salient facts are:
The Little Chip was a smaller fishing vessel (not a vessel engaged in
fishing) returning to port to avoid rough weather. She did not
maintain proper lookout either by sight or by monitoring the radio.
She was crossing back and forth across a channel. The Texaco Panama
was an overtaking vessel and attempted to hail the Little Chip several
times by whistle and radio. The Texaco Panama attempted to maneuver to
avoid the Little Chip but was unable to do so, struck the Little Chip,
and sank her.
It is interesting to note that the judge found that the Little Chip
was crossing and the Texaco Panama was overtaking, but the primary
fault was the Little Chip's failure to maintain a proper lookout.
(Unsafe speed and improper lookout are the two allegations I see most
often in court.)
Here's the decision, which speaks for itself.
John...
This civil action arises out of the collision between the trawler
Little Chip and the oil tanker SS Texaco Ohio. Trial of the case was
held on October 8, 1976, after which the parties were
afforded the opportunity to present additional briefs. The Court then
took the matter under submission.
Based on the evidence adduced at trial and the law applicable to the
case, the Court now makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact.
1.
The F/V Little Chip is a 63-foot long shrimp trawler of 93.5 gross
tons. She was powered by a single diesel engine of approximately 400
horsepower and had a top speed of 10 to 12
knots. The vessel was also equipped with both UHF and CB radios and
radar. At all relevant times, the Little Chip was owned and operated
by Hardy S. Jones.
2.
The S/S Texaco Ohio is a tank vessel measuring 619 feet in length and
83.5 feet in breadth. The vessel, which is owned and operated by
Texaco Panama, Inc., was carrying a cargo of
oil on the date of the collision. On that date, the vessel was in the
vicinity of Southwest Pass, proceeding up the Mississippi River to
Convent, Louisiana, to discharge its cargo of oil.
3.
On November 25, 1974, after trawling in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Little Chip was proceeding from the west to Southwest Pass in order to
avoid bad weather in the Gulf. At that time,
Captain Emmett A. Clayton was at the helm of the Little Chip.
4.
The Little Chip entered the channel approximately midway between the
sea buoy and the No. 1 bell buoy, marking the entrance of the Alpha
Range of the channel. At approximately the
same time, the Texaco Ohio was taking aboard a pilot, Timothy Flynn,
to navigate the vessel in Southwest Pass. Flynn was taken to the
Texaco Ohio aboard the pilot boat, Delta, which
was commanded by Claude L. Watts.
5.
While approaching the Southwest Pass channel, Captain Clayton of the
Little Chip sighted the Texaco Ohio in the vicinity of the sea buoy.
At this time, the Texaco Ohio was apparently
in the process of taking on her pilot. Upon boarding the Texaco Ohio,
her pilot, Flynn, directed the vessel's course in a northerly
direction, with her engines on full ahead, thereby giving
the Texaco Ohio an approximate speed of 11 knots.
6.
After the Little Chip entered the mouth of Southwest Pass by turning
to port, she proceeded up the Alpha range and turned to her starboard
upon entering the Beta range of the
channel. The vessel then straightened up in the channel and held
close to the west bank of the channel while proceeding in a
northeasterly direction.
7.
At the same time, the Texaco Ohio approached the East Jetty of the
Pass and was beginning to overtake the Little Chip. The Texaco Ohio
was proceeding approximately 125 feet east
of the centerline of the channel. At this time, as the Texaco Ohio
was overtaking the Little Chip, the trawler began crossing the channel
by heading to starboard, thereby closing in on
the Texaco Ohio's port bow. Captain Flynn attempted to raise the
Little Chip on UHF Channels 13 and 16, but received no response. In
addition, he called the pilot boat, Delta, and
requested that it range ahead and alert the trawler to the Texaco
Ohio's presence. It should be noted that immediately following the
accident, Flynn was able to reach the trawler via
Channel 16.
8.
Captain Flynn's testimony is corroborated by that of Claude L. Watts,
master of the pilot boat, Delta. Watts stated in his deposition that
as he was following the Texaco Ohio, he saw a
shrimp trawler, the Little Chip, coming from the west to the east
side of the channel. In other words, the trawler was coming in from
the west at an angle and thus closing in on the
Texaco Ohio's port. Watts testified that he went alongside the Little
Chip, blew his whistle and pointed toward the Texaco Ohio. The Little
Chip, either ignoring Watts' warnings or not
hearing them, continued to head over to the eastward side of the
channel. This is despite the customary river practice that
shallow-draft vessels should stay on the westernmost side
of the channel in Southwest Pass.
9.
As the Little Chip and the Texaco Ohio closed in on each other,
Captain Flynn ordered starboard rudder on the Texaco Ohio and reversed
his engines. Nevertheless, the two vessels
collided, the port side of the Texaco Ohio striking the starboard
outrigger of the Little Chip.
10.
As the Texaco Ohio and the Little Chip approached each other and a
collision seemed imminent, Captain Flynn testified that he gave one
blast of his whistle of an eight- to ten-second
duration. Captain Flynn intended the whistle blast to act as a danger
signal and to attract the attention of the Little Chip as it was
crossing over the Texaco Ohio's path. Nonetheless,
Flynn stated that according to custom and practice on the river, a
single whistle blast usually signifies that one vessel is overtaking
another. Before turning starboard, Flynn blew
several whistle blasts that were not responded to by the Little Chip.
Furthermore, the Texaco Ohio took last minute evasive maneuvers in
order to avoid the collision; namely, backing
down and pulling hard to starboard. Captain Clayton of the Little
Chip stated that he simply did not hear any whistles from the Texaco
Ohio. This may have been due in part to the fact
that there was a hard wind blowing at the time and that prior to the
collision, all hatches and portholes on the Little Chip appeared to be
shut tight. In addition, there was no lookout
posted on the deck of the trawler at that time. There is no evidence
to indicate, as the plaintiff contends, that the Texaco Ohio was
attempting to pass between Little Chip and the east
bank of the channel. The evidence establishes that the Texaco Ohio
was proceeding straight up the channel in the process of overtaking
the trawler, when the trawler began crossing
toward the tanker's port side.
Conclusions of Law.
The Court has jurisdiction of this case by virtue of the admiralty
and maritime subject matter of the claims involved. U.S. Const. art.
III, sec. 2; 28 U.S. Code, sec. 1333; Rule 9(h),
Fed.R.Civ.P. In a collision case such as this, the Court will apply
the principles and precedents of admiralty law, United States v..
Reliable Transfer, 421 U.S. 397, 1975 AMC 541
(1975), as well as Rules of the Road for Inland Waters, 33 U.S. Code,
sec. 151 et seq. and the Pilot Rules for Inland Waters, 33 C.F.R. sec.
80, et seq.
In order to apportion liability in this maritime collision, the Court
is compelled to follow the mandate enunciated by the United States
Supreme Court in Reliable Transfer, supra. There,
the Supreme Court, in rejecting the divided damages rule, held as
follows:
"We hold that when two or more parties have contributed by their
fault to cause property damage in a maritime collision or stranding,
liability for such damage is to be allocated among
the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault,
and that liability for such damages is to be allocated equally only
when the parties are equally at fault or when it is not
possible fairly to measure the comparative degree of their fault."
(Emphasis supplied.) (421 U.S. 397, 1975 AMC at 552).
The critical language in Reliable Transfer is, of course, "degree of
fault." The Supreme Court's new emphasis on degree of fault as the
determinative factor in apportionment of
damages was amply demonstrated by its discussion of the inequities
inherent in the divided damages rule:
"* * * An equal division of damages is a reasonably satisfactory
result only where each vessel's fault is approximately equal and each
vessel thus assumes a share of the collision
damages in proportion to its share of the blame, or where
proportionate degrees of fault cannot be measured and determined on a
rational bsis. The rule produces palpably unfair
results in everyother case. For example, where one ship's fault in
causing a collision is relatively slight and her damages small, and
where the second ship is grossly negligent and
suffers extensive damage, the first ship must still make a
substantial payment to the second." (421 U.S. 397, 1975 AMC at
547-548.)
In assessing the degree of fault of each vessel in the case at bar,
it is clear from the facts that the Texaco Ohio was overtaking the
Little Chip. Accordingly, the Texaco Ohio's action
vis-a-vis the Little Chip fall within the ambit of Article 24 of the
Rules of the Road for Inland Waters (33 C.F.R. sec. 209) which defines
an overtaking vessel as "every vessel coming up
with another vessel from any direction more than two points abaft her
beam." Article 24 goes on to say that if a vessel, upon approaching
another vessel, is in doubt as to whether she
is overtaking or not, she is bound to assume that she is an
overtaking vessel and keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel.
Nonetheless, the evidence is equally clear that even as the Texaco
Ohio was overtaking the Little Chip, the trawler was crossing in front
of the tanker. As such, she was required by
Article 19 of the Inland Rules to exercise due care before attempting
to engage in such a maneuver since the tanker was on her starboard. n1
Not only did the Little Chip thereby
commit a statutory violation of the Inland Rules of the Road, but was
also actively negligent in other respects. The Little Chip failed to
exercise reasonable care under the
circumstances when she failed to hear and heed the warning signals of
the Texaco Ohio. Its failure to hear such signals was caused in no
small part by the trawler's failure to keep a
lookout on its deck. Under the circumstances of this case, when the
Little Chip's hatches and portholes were closed and she knew a larger
tanker was in the vicinity, failure to keep a
lookout was negligence in itself. See, Alamo Chemical Transportation
v. M/V Overseas Valdez, 1975 AMC 1762, 398 F.Supp. 1094 (E.D.La.,
1975). Furthermore, the Little Chip was
negligent in failing properly to monitor its radio.
n1 Article 19 of the Inland Rules of the Road (33 U.S. Code, sec.
204) provides:
"When two steam vessels are crossing, so as to involve risk of
collision, the vessel which has the other on her starboard, shall keep
out of the way of the other."
Under the rule of Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1874), the Texaco Ohio,
being statutorily at fault, would bear the burden not only of showing
that its fault did not cause the collision, but
that it could not have caused the collision. While the rule of
Pennsylvania still casts fault upon a party who as violated a statute,
Reliable Transfer requires that fault be measured in its
proportionate degree. Such an interpretation of Reliable Transfer is
borne out by the Court's comment that:
"* * * the potential unfairness of the division [divided damages
rule] is magnified by the application of the rule of Pennsylvania * *
*, whereby a ship's relatively minor statutory violation
will require her to bear half the collision damage unless she can
satisfy the heavy burden of showing 'not merely that her fault might
not have been one of the causes, or that it probably
was not, but that it could not have been.'" (Emphasis supplied.) (421
U.S. 397, 1975 AMC at 548).
In apportioning the relative degree of fault among the parties in
this case, the Court must be aware of the navigational problems
confronting a large tanker when encountering a
smaller and more maneuverable vessel such as the Little Chip. As a
practical matter, the commercial transportation of goods in maritime
commerce by large freighters or tankers
would come to a virtual standstill if those vessels were at the
navigational mercy of smaller vessels that constantly sail the inland
waterways of the United States. As a maritime fact of
life, larger vessels such as the Texaco Ohio are less maneuverable
than smaller vessels and have greater difficulty stopping once they
are underway. As such, if large vessels were
required to stop and give way, under penalty of violating some rule
of the road, to every fishing vessel they may encounter, those larger
vessels would be virtually paralyzed in their
movement.Accordingly, it is almost certain that tankers and
freighters, such as the Texaco Ohio, will violate some statutory rules
of the road in their almost daily encounters with
smaller fishing vessels such as the Little Chip.
In such a situation, for the Court to apportion a great degree of
fault to larger vessels for their technical violation of statutory
navigational rules would constitute the "potential
unfairness" described by the Supreme Court in Reliable Transfer. This
is not to say that smaller and more maneuverable vessels must utilize
a higher degree of care when
confronting larger craft. Nor does it mean that larger vessels are
not required to exercise ordinary care and good seamanship on inland
water. This Court is merely stating that, in light
of Reliable Transfer, it must take into consideration factors other
than statutory violations in apportioning degree of fault. The
evidence in the case at bar is clear that other than such
technical statutory violation of the inland rules, the Texaco Ohio
used all due care and good seamanship in its confrontation with the
Little Chip. The Texaco Ohio blew several warning
blasts of its whistle and tried to avoid the collision by backing
down and moving to starboard.
nonyabusiness
I know that you believe that what you are saying makes perfectly good
sense, but it is simply not correct. In fact, Admiralty courts
recognize the concept of a "last clear chance" to avoid collision and
generally do not hold this type of in extremis maneuver against the
mariner/vessel. Let me give you some quotes (from "Farwell's Rules of
the Nautical Road," pp. 229). I believe that these decisions are still
good law (although I expect that there are later decisions reaffirming
them):
"Where the master of a vessel, who is a navigator of experience and
good judgement, is confronted with a sudden peril, caused by the
action of another vessel, so that he is justified in believing that
collision is inevitable, and he exercises his best judgement in the
emergency, his action, even though unwise, cannot be imputed to his
vessel as a fault." - The Queen Elizabeth (CCA 1903) 122 F.406.
"If one vessel places another in a position of extreme danger through
wrongful navigation, the other is not to be held in fault if she is
not navigated with perfect skill and prsence of mind." - The Lafayette
(CCA N.Y. 1920) 269 F.917.
pp. 230-231 of Farwell's has a great discussion on in extremis
situations. The fact is that the there are a number of factors that go
into determining fault, but generally (and one is always wrong when
one speaks in generalities), the largest proportion of fault is held
against the vessel which failed to exercise the most fundamental of
the rules, i,e. proper lookout, safe speed and the exercise of the
judgement of a careful and prudent mariner.
I'm going to drop out of this thread for now. If you folks are really
interested in learning more about this subject, you can do one of four
things:
1) Buy Farwell's and study up. Then buy Law of Marine Collision and
study some more.
2) Go to a school like Sea School (which will teach you some, but not
all of these matters). Then buy Farwell's and study up.
3) Come to the (supplemental) Rules of the Road discussion in my
Seamanship class in Raleigh (one evening only this spring). You need
to know the basic rules before you come to the discussion.
4) Wait for me to finish the book (which will never get done if I keep
posting here), buy it, then study it.
Fair winds,
John...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:04:59 GMT, T Spragg <tksp...@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:
>You are, of course, perfectly correct to realize that, regardless of
>what transpired, it will come down to the last action taken by the last
>person who could have avoided a collision. If Hse didn't do the right
>thing, hse's responsible.
>
>Of course, regardless of the fact that not every minuatae can be
>expressly cited in every law, pedestrians always have the right of way,
>especially at sea. If you don't believe me, just try running a few down
>in the presence of witnesses.
>