Hitting an anchored boat in a sparsely populated anchorage while under sail

[smj]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Are you taking the piss?

Rule 1:



Rule 9 is in part B too, and it specifically mentions anchored vessels. And rule 5 has been repeatedly upheld in courts as being applicable to anchored vessels. It's also in the "steering and sailing" part. So if you're required to look-out, it only stands to reason you are required to do something with that lookout - like determining if there's a risk of collision.

Both rule 5 and rule 9 concern moving vessels and don’t mention anchored vessels.
Please show me where?

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publ...andardSize.pdf
Rule 7 may hold true for the vessel under power, but I don’t believe would hold true for the anchored vessel.
Do all anchored vessels with radars keep a 24 hour radar watch? Seriously?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by smj

.
Please show me where?

I've already shown you Rule 1. "All vessels" - pretty unequivocal.

Rule 9 (g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel.

Originally Posted by smj

.


Do all anchored vessels with radars keep a 24 hour radar watch? Seriously?

The big ships do. Seriously!

[smj]

Originally Posted by JebLostInSpace

These damn kids these days and their damn iPads!



Seriously, I hear this argument all the time on this forum, yet I've never seen an instance of it. Where are these people sailing around watching only their screens? Sounds like a great way to take all the enjoyment out of sailing to me.



Old codgers (I say that as a term of endearment) have complained about technology ruining the youth for hundreds of years. My parents lamented the fact that kids were always on the internet and didn't know how to use a library. Their parents lamented that the kids just use calculators and don't know how to do arithmetic. Their parents lamented that the kids drove everywhere and didn't know how to ride a bike. All the way back to the very real and documented complaints of youth relying too heavily on paper. They evidently lacked the patience and care required to write on a slate.



AIS augments one's awareness of other boats. It doesn't prevent anyone from seeing with their eyes, or with radar, or hearing a horn in the fog, or seeing a light at night. It just adds another channel for the information to reach someone. And given that a lot fewer boats and ships sink these days vs 1000 years ago, I'm going to go ahead and say technological advances to aid mariners are generally a good thing. And since you've been remarkably bull-headed on this point in spite of pages and pages of very cogent arguments outlining why you're wrong, I'll go ahead and put you on my ignore list. Congrats, you're the second person to ever make that prestigious list.

We helped a buyer deliver our old catamaran to its new destination, a 2 day ICW trip. While underway he had the chartplotter, iPad and iPhone in front of him and that was his means of remaining in the center of the channel, not looking at the dirt banks on either side. There was quite a few times when I told him he was getting ready to hit the shallows as he was straying to the side of the ditch but all it did was bring out an attitude in him so I stopped. He managed to run up on some rocks on the side of the ditch ruining one prop and bending the starboard rudder into the hull. It was hydraulic steering so was able to disable the bent rudder. After reaching our destination my wife and I picked up a rental car and received a call from the new owner, he didn’t appreciate the fact we sold him a boat with a bent rudder! He was the head IT guy at a large company and I’m sure was good at his job, but that didn’t help his navigational skills at all. So YES, there are people out there like that.
And as worthless as your post is I still won’t put you on the ignore list as you may have something useful to say at some point.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So if you're required to look-out, it only stands to reason you are required to do something with that lookout - like determining if there's a risk of collision.

The rules specifically refer to "collision" not "allision".
https://naylorlaw.com/blog/allision/

[smj]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I've already shown you Rule 1. "All vessels" - pretty unequivocal.



The big ships do. Seriously!

Yes, for moving vessels. Can’t find the regulations for anchored vessels
And yes, big ships do but we are in cruisers forum?

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by smj

Yes, for moving vessels. Can’t find the regulations for anchored vessels
And yes, big ships do but we are in cruisers forum?

Technically we're all required to keep a 24/7 watch at anchor. Realistically, most of us don't have enough people on board to make that a reasonable thing to do and tend to anchor in places where it doesn't present much of an issue.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by smj

Both rule 5 and rule 9 concern moving vessels and don’t mention anchored vessels.
Please show me where?

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publ...andardSize.pdf
Rule 7 may hold true for the vessel under power, but I don’t believe would hold true for the anchored vessel.
Do all anchored vessels with radars keep a 24 hour radar watch? Seriously?

I refer you to Cockcroft:
Rule 5:
Anchor watch
The duty to keep a proper look-out applies also when a vessel is at anchor, especially if there is a strong tide running, or if other vessels are likely to be passing by.
Gerda Toft-Elizabeth Mary
It may be that a seaman cannot help his anchor dragging in certain circumstances,but what he can do, and what he has a duty to do, is to keep a good look-out and take prompt measures to stop the dragging if and when it does occur. The failureof the Gerdu Toft to take timely measures in this case was due, as I find, to bad look-out.As I have already said, both her officers were in the chartroom at the material time, and the only look-out was that of the extremely ineffective seaman, who remained on deck, and to whom I have already referred. Because of this bad look-out those in charge of the Gerdu Toft as it seems to me, had no real idea of what was happening, and, therefore, failing to appreciatethe situation,failed to take any adequate steps to arrest the dragging of their vessel. (Mr JusticeWillmer, 1953)

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

The rules specifically refer to "collision" not "allision".
https://naylorlaw.com/blog/allision/

Allision is a collision with a fixed object - a ship at anchor is not a fixed object. I can't believe I have to point out that the "collision" rules contain numerous rules that apply to anchored vessels - lights, shapes, sound signals, definitions, etc.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by smj

Yes, for moving vessels. Can’t find the regulations for anchored vessels
And yes, big ships do but we are in cruisers forum?

Quote the part in the rules that says "for moving vessels only."

If you can't find the regulations for anchored vessels, I again point you to Rule 1 which covers all vessels; no exception for anchored vessels, and rules 3, 9, 30 and 35 which all specifically mention anchored vessels.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

The rules specifically refer to "collision" not "allision".
https://naylorlaw.com/blog/allision/

FYI:

WHAT IS AN ALLISION?

https://maritimelegalhelp.com/what-is-an-allision/

Allision is an important term in maritime law. It’s used to refer to situations in which one vessel runs into another or into an object that isn’t in motion. The main difference between an allision and a collision is that in the second case, there are two vessels running against each other.

A Detailed Explanation and Applicability

This is a very important term pertaining to crashes at sea, identifying the guilty party and investigating the consequences of such an accident. As far as negligence goes, figuring out who has caused the crash may also be important.

A person that has been involved in an allision may be entitled to compensation for negligence under the Jones Act. This is why the term is important. It usually pertains to the one vessel in motion rather than two ships approaching each other. Thus, it may be a lot easier to identify the guilty party. Most often, it is considered that the moving vessel is the one that should be held accountable for the allision. In such instances, there will be liability standards that apply to the injuries and disabilities of people who have been involved in the crash.

. . .

The Different Interpretation and Liability Rules

An allision at sea may be subjected to a couple of specific rules. The most important ones include the Oregon Rule, Louisiana Rule, and the Pennsylvania Rule.



the Pennsylvania Rule states that whenever a vessel violates statutory provisions aimed at preventing allisions and collisions, it is also partially to blame for a crash. In such situations, the entity that violated regulations will be burdened with proving that the violation didn’t cause the accident or contribute to it in any way.

Louisiana and Oregon rules come with similar provisions. Both of them state that a moving vessel is at fault whenever it hits an object at rest. Under these rules, damage caused by an allision is always the responsibility of the moving vessel’s operator. In such situations, the operator or owner of the moving vessel is the entity that has the burden of proof.
Thus, the interpretation will be dependent on the place where the crash has occurred and the specific circumstances.



https://www.offshoreinjuryfirm.com/o...ssels-allide-/

THE OREGON RULE: WHY THE DEFINITION OF ALLISION MATTERS FOR MARITIME LAW
The difference between an allision or a collision matters when trying to prove who is a fault for an accident. In maritime law, there’s something known as the Oregon Rule that defines who is at fault for an allision. The Oregon Rule states that “presumption derives from the common-sense observation that moving vessels do not usually collide with stationary objects unless the [moving] vessel is mishandled in some way."

In other words, if a vessel hits a stationary object, it’s considered at fault for the allision unless the operator can prove otherwise.

Moving vessels must prove one of the following to shift fault for colliding with a non-moving object:

It was operating under reasonable care
The stationary object was at fault for the incident
The accident with the object was unavoidable

[smj]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Quote the part in the rules that says "for moving vessels only."



If you can't find the regulations for anchored vessels, I again point you to Rule 1 which covers all vessels; no exception for anchored vessels, and rules 3, 9, 30 and 35 which all specifically mention anchored vessels.

So rule 7 deals with collision, but a moving vessel striking an anchored vessel isn’t considered a collision but an Allison.........
Ones moving and ones stationary

[Montanan]

https://thelawdictionary.org/collisi...s%20stationary.

The Law Dictionary
Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

COLLISION Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & Citations:

In maritime law. The act of ships or vessels striking together. In its strict sense, collision means the impact of two vessels both moving, and is distinguished from allision, which designates the striking of a moving vessel against one that is stationary. But collision is used in a broad sense, to include allision, and perhaps other species of encounters between vessels. Wright v. Brown, 4 Ind. 9T, 58 Am. Dec. G22; London Assur. Co. v. Compauhia De Moageus, G8 Fed. 258, 15 C. C. A. 379; Towing Co. v. TLtna Ins. Co., 23 App. Div. 152, 48 N. Y. Supp. 927.

The term is not inapplicable to cases where a stationary vessel is struck by one under way. strictly termed “allision or where one vessel is brought into contact with another by swinging at anchor. And even an injury received by a vessel at her moorings, in consequence of being violently rubbed or pressed against by a second vessel lying along-side of her. in consequence of a collision against such second vessel by a third one under way, may be compensated for, under the general head of “collision.” as well as an injury which is the direct result of a “blow.” properly so called. The Moxey, Abb. Adm. 73, Fed. Cas. No. 9,S94


ALLISION Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & Citations:
The running of one vessel into or against another, as distinguished from a collision, i. e., the running of two vessels against each other.

[Montanan]

FYI:
Am American maritime law perspective.

https://iyba.org/news-detail/liabili...lision%20cases.

In maritime law, liability for damage caused by an allision (when a moving vessel strikes a stationary object) depends on fault. American courts have developed a set of judicial presumptions that apportion fault in collision and allision cases. One of these presumptions is the Louisiana Rule—named for the U.S. Supreme Court case, The Louisiana, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 164 (1865), that established the rule—which holds that a drifting vessel that allies with a stationary object is presumed to be at fault for any damage it caused.

The Louisiana Rule “derives from the common-sense observation that moving vessels do not usually collide with stationary objects unless the moving vessel is mishandled in some way.” Bunge Corp. v. Freeport Marine Repair, Inc., 240 F.3d 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, the Louisiana Rule is analogous to the general tort doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), which holds that, when an object causes damage that could only have occurred through negligence, the person responsible for the object must have been negligent.

When a court finds that a vessel broke free from her moorings and allied with a stationary object, the breakaway vessel is presumably at fault and the vessel’s owner is presumably liable. An owner can rebut that presumption by showing one of three things: that the stationary object was at fault, that the owner used reasonable care, or that the allision was an inevitable accident. See Fischer v. S/Y NERAIDA, 508 F.3d 586, 593–94 (11th Cir. 2007).

First, an owner can rebut the presumption by showing that the stationary object was at fault. If the breakaway vessel allied with another vessel, the owner could show, for example, that the other vessel was moored in a dangerous location. If the breakaway vessel damaged her berth, the owner could show that the berth was not maintained in a safe condition. This rebuttal resembles the tort defense of contributory negligence, when a defendant turns the tables to show why the plaintiff was really the cause of his injury. See id. at 593. IMHO, an anchored vessel with out proper signal lights or day shapes, or AIS transponder operating could be presumed to be partly at fault. Ditto for lacking an effective watch, or not maneuvering to avoid the allision / collision. It is a simple matter to move about your anchor, or let go of your mooring.

The second way an owner can rebut the presumption is by showing that he used reasonable care to secure the vessel before the storm. “Applied to the context of hurricane preparations, reasonable care amounts to whether the owner ‘use[d] all reasonable means and took proper action to guard against, prevent or mitigate the dangers posed by the hurricane.’” Id. at 594 (alteration in original) (quoting Stuart Cay Marina v. M/V SPECIAL DELIVERY, 510 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1072 (S.D. Fla. 2007)). Whether the owner’s actions met the legal standard of reasonable care depends on a number of facts and circumstances and in many cases, requires evidence of industry practices.

Finally, the owner can rebut the presumption by showing that the allision was an inevitable accident. An owner asserting the defense of inevitable accident bears a heavy burden, for he must show that he took every reasonable precaution. See Boudoin v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 281 F.2d 81, 88 (5th Cir. 1960). It is not enough to show that the cause of the allision, such as a hurricane, was beyond the owner’s control. “An accident is said to be ‘inevitable’ not merely when caused by vis major or an Act of God but also when all precautions reasonably to be required have been taken, and the accident has occurred notwithstanding.” GRANT GILMORE & CHARLES L. BLACK, JR., THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY 486 (2d ed. 1975).

The Louisiana Rule means that the owner of a breakaway vessel faces an uphill battle to avoid liability for damage caused by his vessel. The law imposes on him the burden to show that the other object was at fault, that he used reasonable care to secure his vessel, or that the accident was inevitable.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Quote the part in the rules that says "for moving vessels only."

If you can't find the regulations for anchored vessels, I again point you to Rule 1 which covers all vessels; no exception for anchored vessels, and rules 3, 9, 30 and 35 which all specifically mention anchored vessels.

An anchored vessel is fixed by it's anchor You have failed to provide a citation that describes an anchored vessel as underway.

From the admiralty lawyer whose article I linked.
"The nautical definition of an allision is “the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary.” The distinction between it and a ‘collision’ is that in the latter, both ships are moving."

[Montanan]

US CFR § 1603. Vessels subject to International Regulations

Except as provided in section 1604 of this title
and subject to the provisions of section 1605 of
this title, the International Regulations, as proclaimed under section 1602 of this title, shall be applicable to, and shall be complied with by-

(1) all vessels, public and private, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, while
upon the high seas or in waters connected
therewith navigable by seagoing vessels, and
(2) all other vessels when on waters subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(Pub. L. 95-75, § 4, July 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 309.)

§ 1604. Vessels not subject to International Regulations
(a) The International Regulations do not apply to vessels while In the waters of the United States shoreward of the navigational demarcation lines dividing the high seas from harbors, rivers, and other inland waters of the
United States.
(b) Whenever a vessel subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States is in the territorial waters of a foreign state the International Regulations shall be applicable to, and shall be complied with by, that vessel to the extent that
the laws and regulations of the foreign state are not in conflict therewith.
(Pub. L. 95-75, § 5, July 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 309;
Pub. L. 96..591, § 6(1), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat.
3434.)


US 33 CFR § 164.19 - Requirements for vessels at anchor.

Albeit this is not specifically applicable to small, recreational vessels but is indicative of good seapersonship.

§ 164.19 Requirements for vessels at anchor.

The master or person in charge of each vessel that is anchored shall ensure that:

(a) A proper anchor watch is maintained;

(b) Procedures are followed to detect a dragging anchor; and

(c) Whenever weather, tide, or current conditions are likely to cause the vessel's anchor to drag, action is taken to ensure the safety of the vessel, structures, and other vessels, such as being ready to veer chain, let go a second anchor, or get underway using the vessel's own propulsion or tug assistance.

[CGD 74-77, 42 FR 5956, Jan. 31, 1977]