Sleeping While at Sea

[captain58sailin]

With the lack of funding, there isn't much chance you will get boarded for that, they are looking for smugglers. so they can seize the assets and hold a sale.

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

With the lack of funding, there isn't much chance you will get boarded for that, they are looking for smugglers. so they can seize the assets and hold a sale.

What you describe sounds a lot less like serve and protect, and a lot more like legalized piracy.

Shame what we ran from so many years ago in England, is now what we have become.

[captain58sailin]

The coast guard was originally founded to stop the rum runners (smugglers), then changed to search and rescue. Since being absorbed by the Homeland insecurity they have returned to main mission of stopping smuggling or terrorists, they still do a very fine job of search and rescue, and they are heroes in my book. It is not an easy job.

[jackdale]

I expect that as in most collision cases this will occur after an incident

In a 1984 court case (Granholm v. TFL
Express), a singlehanded yacht, Granholm, was run down from behind by the freighter
TFL Express (WindCheck, “Rules of Engagement,” October 2010.) The owner of the
Granholm sued the Express for failing to maintain a proper lookout (Rule 5) and to give
way to the overtaken vessel (Rule 13). The court agreed – but found the skipper of the
Granholm equally at fault. He was sleeping and thus had no lookout. “The obligation to
maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small, alike.”

[Cheechako]

With all the Tsunami debris and sleeping fisherman in the Pacific... a Westsail is starting to sound pretty good again!

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I expect that as in most collision cases this will occur after an incident

This case is cited whenever someone wants to project the argument that a singlehanded sailor has no legal standing if he is unable to stand a continuous watch. The truth is that in this often cited case the court enter a judgment in favor of the singlehanded sailor even though he was equally at fault by not standing a continuous watch. This judgment was for over $77,000 in 1983 dollars for a 38 foot vessel.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Kai Granholm and against the vessel TFL EXPRESS and defendant Timur Carriers (Pte.) Ltd., jointly and severally, in the amount of $77,655.30, with interest from the date of judgment until paid.
The Clerk is further directed to dismiss the complaint against defendant Trans Freight Lines, Inc. with prejudice.
Plaintiff may recover the costs of the action in an amount to be taxed by the Clerk.
It is So Ordered.

[FLLCatsailor]

I just always assume that commercial traffic is not keeping proper watch...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I expect that as in most collision cases this will occur after an incident

In most cases involving maritime law, both parties will be found liable to one extent or another, because the over-arching rule is to do everything necessary to avoid a collision. Virtually always, there's something both parties could have done.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

In most cases involving maritime law, both parties will be found liable to one extent or another, because the over-arching rule is to do everything necessary to avoid a collision. Virtually always, there's something both parties could have done.

True, in most cases.

This posting discussed an exception

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post764988

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

This case is cited whenever someone wants to project the argument that a singlehanded sailor has no legal standing if he is unable to stand a continuous watch. The truth is that in this often cited case the court enter a judgment in favor of the singlehanded sailor even though he was equally at fault by not standing a continuous watch. This judgment was for over $77,000 in 1983 dollars for a 38 foot vessel.

The judgement was for 1/2 of the value of the boat and other claims as both parties shared responsibility.

Lost Property: $149,358.00
Personal Injury: 5,000.00
Travel Expense: 952.60
Total: $155,310.60
Under the Court's resolution of the liability question, plaintiff will recover judgment for one-half of this amount, $77,655.30, against the vessel TFL EXPRESS in rem and defendant Timur Carriers (Pte.) Ltd. in personam. The complaint against defendant Trans Freight Lines, Inc. will be dismissed.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jackdale

True, in most cases.

This posting discussed an exception

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post764988

Of course

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by dirkdig

We were sailing past Brisbane one night with a large container ship coming out of the channel into open ocean.

Saw him on Ais and that was it.

Called him on Vhf and let him know his lights were not on, under the control of the pilot as well.

Amazing such a massive ship with no nav lights as they forgot when they left port

That is most unusual. Typically, all nav lights have built in redundancy. There is an upper and a lower lamp. There is also usually an alarm light notifying the bridge watch that a nav light is out, and then the other one is switched on. The electrician or a QMED changes the bulb in the morning. When doing gear test, nav lights are part of a normal checklist. The mate on watch normally has to sign a sheet or make a log entry that gear was tested as per master's standing orders. These guys were running a very slipshod operation, even for a foreign flagged vessel.

[Pelagic]

I think in close quarters… you have to assume, that the watch keeper is either:
Asleep,
Not looking,
Busy racing
Or has diarrhea and is in the head.

In Marine Law collision cases that result in a death there are always exceptions to the Rules that often belie common sense or even justice.

Perfect racing example was the death of a father crewing for his yachtsman son, sailing at the entrance of False Creek (Vancouver) on a sailboat, in the early 70’s.

They had a collision with a tug and large empty barge coming out False Creek, killing the father.

Court eventually ruled against tug boat skipper and towing company (Shields Navigation)… with part of the verbal opinion stating that Tug operator should have taken into account that “pleasure boaters might not recognize the connection between tug and unmanned barge, so tug should have been hardened right up to barge’ or even run aground to avoid sailboat whose spinnaker had collapsed’

I remember the tug operator lost his license and that it went into all kinds of dissenting appeals….

A full and accurate account of the actions of the sailboat is to be found in the dissenting reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Thurlow at [1974] 1 F.C. at pp. 671-2, as follows:
On the afternoon in question they and some twenty to thirty others, some of them also from California, had engaged in an informal practice race and thereafter the Steins and some of the others were continuing their sailing for further practice; Having sailed out to the vicinity of Ferguson Point at least three of them had turned at some juncture and thereafter for from ten to twenty minutes; and with the Stein boat in the lead, they were sailing with the wind on the port beam proceeding at from three to three and a half miles per hour in a generally southeasterly direction with their mainsails, jibs and spinnakers set. The Steins were experienced sailors but they were not familiar with the sight of large barges being towed by comparatively small tugs, which is a common thing in Vancouver Harbour. They were about to take down their spinnaker, preparing to proceed to Kitsilano Yacht Club, and had released its sheet when Ross Stein saw on his port side the bow and starboard side of a tug, which turned out to be the Storm Point, but he did not see the barge which it was towing at a distance of some 150 feet behind. He altered course to port at once and neither anticipated nor had any difficulty by that manœuvre in clearing the tug but, according to his evidence, which the learned trial judge appears to have adopted, he had just steadied and picked
[Page 811]
up way on his new course when for the first time he saw the barge directly in front of him. He thereupon made strenuous efforts to avoid the barge by going further to port but his spinnaker had collapsed and with what way he had he was unable to bring his boat into the wind so as to go on a starboard tack. The bow of the sail boat came in contact with that of the barge just to the starboard of its centre, the boat was pushed around so that its port side came in contact with the starboard portion of the bow of the barge, the sailboat was thereupon capsized, and Dr. Stein was thrown out and lost his life.
In the result, as I have said, Mr. Justice Thurlow would have varied the judgment at trial by dividing the fault equally between the two vessels involved and it appears to me that the essential difference between his opinion and that of Mr. Justice Heald is that the latter, who found that the tug was in breach of Rule 20(a) of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea (hereafter referred to as “the Regulations”) took the contrary view.
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I expect that as in most collision cases this will occur after an incident

Very seldom is one party found wholly at fault. Read the COLREGS carefully. You will see that there are few situations where you would not be in violation if you were in a collision. Basically, the only way to totally avoid any responsibility is to be intentionally run down while attempting with utmost effort to evade the other vessel and all the while hailing on VHF and attempting to communicate via all other means available as well. Even NUC... why were you NUC? What broke and disabled your vessel, that could not have been inspected and repaired before it disabled your vessel? Hard aground? Well, were your charts corrected up to date? I know of not one single yachtsman who has a proper chart correction routine. Most don't even subscribe to Notice to Mariners. Most don't have a chart correction kit. Most have old charts. Some have NONE AT ALL. So how did you run aground again? The skipper is of course responsible for the actions of his crew, even if he is asleep. Let's see... Sailing vessel? Sorry... you are still required to do all that is possible to avoid a collision when you determine that risk of collision exists and that collision cannot be avoided by action of the other vessel alone. And you may depart from the rules when you determine that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action. Look... they got you, no matter what sort of excuses you have. If you end up being found only 10% at fault and the court decides not to hold that against you, you have won the lottery. Go celebrate.

[sestina]

Last year whilst on passage from Halifax to Europe we got caught by a nasty storm system about a week out from Ireland. We had the orange sails up for several days, in one 30 hour period we lay hove-to under trysail alone. The idea either SWMBO or I keeping a continuous look out did not appeal, especially as it was nigh impossible to see anything to windward.

Being to the north of the main shipping lanes we switched our Sea-Me to squawk if swept by another vessel's radar. If the Sea-Me sounded off we switched our radar on to a guard zone. We also put out a regular securite call on the VHF, with out positon and that we were Not Under Command. Never saw or spoke to anyone.