When neighboring boat disagrees

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by thinwater

You. It is NOT because he laid 12:1. It is because he laid 12:1 and you decided it was safe to anchor within the swing radius. Think about how silly it would be for the court to try to decide for YOU how much scope is enough and how you should anchor? Impossible, just read any anchoring thread. So the first person may anchor as they see prudent. Perhaps he felt his anchor held poorly. Perhaps he has rope rode. Perhaps he felt differently about the weather forecast. Impossible to judge. He did what he felt was prudent and he did not drag.

This is like telling someone they don't know how to drive, because they drive differently from you, but when they have broken no law. All you can do is give them room.

Well, to carry on your driving analogy, we DO tell people how to drive. If someone veers across the lane and hits me, while I am driving as proscribed, then who is to blame? It’s more complicated in an anchoring situation, but in my anecdotal case, no one is going to claim 12:1 scope is reasonable.

Originally Posted by thinwater

I though that this, from Dockhead, was well put: "But it does NOT indeed mean that a person who anchored first "rules the roost", or owns the seabed according to his own opinion about how much room he needs. This is a common misconception. A person coming later has the right to anchor the way he pleases, subject only to his responsibility in case of an accident. The earlier vessel has no right to do anything but move, in case he disagrees."

Agreed, but in the real world, when I come into an anchorage, in the absence of direct knowledge (which is the norm), all I can do is attempt to read the layout of the boats based on reasonable anchoring standards. A 12:1 scope is rarely a reasonable standard.

Originally Posted by thinwater

But I don't get this statement (also Dockhead): "If someone's boat goes on the rocks because their prop got entangled [in your anchor float], it will be you paying, not them!"

In this case, they got tangled because they fouled gear that was already there. Following his prior logic, I'm pretty sure they are responsible. There have been court cases where boat A fouled boat B's rode and was held responsible. Same logic.

Makes sense to me. An anchor float is rarely “reasonable.”

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

. . .But I don't get this statement (also Dockhead): "If someone's boat goes on the rocks because their prop got entangled [in your anchor float], it will be you paying, not them!"


In this case, they got tangled because they fouled gear that was already there. Following his prior logic, I'm pretty sure they are responsible. There have been court cases where boat A fouled boat B's rode and was held responsible. Same logic.


BTW, I hate anchor floats.

You are correct, that if someone comes later, and gets tangled in your anchor rode or other gear which is reasonably laid, the later coming vessel will be primarily responsible.


But "primarily" doesn't mean "exclusively", and rarely is anyone exclusively responsible in case of some kind of accident at sea. A good example is the fairly common case where anchored ships bear part of the liability in case a ship underway runs into them.



Furthermore, if the accident results from your doing something grossly unseamanlike, like using an anchor float in a crowded anchorage, then on the contrary, you are going to be primarily responsible for an accident, not the boat which came later and somehow got tangled up in your gear.




That's what I meant. It's all part of the same theme, incidentally -- just because you were first, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want including something daft like put down 12:1 scope in calm weather and good holding, or, much worse, use one of those infernal floats. You are at all times, coming first, coming second, coming whatever, responsible for due care and good seamanship and doing everything you can to prevent an accident, and if you fail to do so, you will get at least part of the liability.


I don't think in Mike's case he would have a good chance in court complaining about the 12:1 scope, because somewhat excessive scope is not as obviously or egregiously poor seamanship as using a float in a crowded anchorage. But you could certainly argue it, and chances are good that at least some of the liability will be assigned as a result.

[ArmyDaveNY]

One must also remember that being held responsible is different than paying. I've come across a few boats that didn't have insurance nor the means to pay. Luckily for me (so far!) it wasn't my boat that was hit.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...I don't think in Mike's case he would have a good chance in court complaining about the 12:1 scope, because somewhat excessive scope is not as obviously or egregiously poor seamanship as using a float in a crowded anchorage. But you could certainly argue it, and chances are good that at least some of the liability will be assigned as a result.

No disagreement. What the law says, and what is just or fair, are not necessarily the same.

To extend my scenario, here to me is an even more likely real-world event:

Mid-sized anchorage. Can easily accommodate say 1/2 dozen boats if they anchor reasonably. I come in. See three or four anchored closer together, and one off to one side. It’s light airs and calm in the anchorage. I do my normal pass through, examine anchored boats, the rodes, and assessing the likely bottom.

The best spot will likely be someplace closer to the single boat. But what if it turns out this is Mr. Grumpy-Pants with his 12:1 scope? How the heck can I know this a-priori? What if Mr GP was actually the fourth boat into the anchorage, but decided to put out his 12:1 even though everyone else is at an appropriate 5-7:1? He disregarded the “first in” guide and now occupies 1/2 the anchorage.

Outside of other not-easily accessible data, I have to assume boats are anchored appropriately. Basic standards of seamanship matter, just like standards of how to drive. There is a reasonableness test in most civil matters. If we go bump in the night, you bet I’ll be arguing for at least a shared liability ruling.

[sailorboy1]

once the blame game starts, ..................................everyone has lost

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, to carry on your driving analogy, we DO tell people how to drive. If someone veers across the lane and hits me, while I am driving as proscribed, then who is to blame? It’s more complicated in an anchoring situation, but in my anecdotal case, no one is going to claim 12:1 scope is reasonable.
False comparison. He performed an action; if we were sailing this is a rules-of-the road question, and he is basically in the position of an overtaking boat (give way).


Agreed, but in the real world, when I come into an anchorage, in the absence of direct knowledge (which is the norm), all I can do is attempt to read the layout of the boats based on reasonable anchoring standards. A 12:1 scope is rarely a reasonable standard.

The case history says mooring it is up to the judgment of the captain. There is no applicable standard of reasonableness.

Makes sense to me. An anchor float is rarely “reasonable.”
Again, many people believe it is reasonable and it is in many books. You had a duty to stay clear, he was anchored, and you were still moving.

I agree the long-scope guy is a pain, but I'm pretty sure he is on solid legal ground. Remember that right and legal are two separate concepts. His argument is pretty simple; I was here first and your actions caused the collision. He was there first, and if you had anchored elsewhere, no collision. You didn't NEED to anchor there, you just wanted to. Try to convince a cop or judge that it was OK to park in a no parking zone because the lot was full. He won't care if you faced a 2-mile walk.


I also don't like floats, but that does not change the law. There are a lot of things I don't like that are legal.

[tatomaceda]

Newbie here... but wouldn't it be a fair assumption that the boat that has anchored there before you is more familiar with the anchorage and its properties than one who has just arrived. You can view him as unfriendly or friendly -- just giving you advise. Either way, the decision and the consequences become yours.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by tatomaceda

Newbie here... but wouldn't it be a fair assumption that the boat that has anchored there before you is more familiar with the anchorage and its properties than one who has just arrived.

No it wouldn’t

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by tatomaceda

Newbie here... but wouldn't it be a fair assumption that the boat that has anchored there before you is more familiar with the anchorage and its properties than one who has just arrived. You can view him as unfriendly or friendly -- just giving you advise. Either way, the decision and the consequences become yours.

Hello, tatomaceda,

To expand on SailorBoy1's statement, not sure if you mean "fair assumption" as in "correct" or "not unfair", but what happens is that the other guy could be just as much of a newbie as you, just arrived a little earlier. You can't really tell from the outside if the person there is Mike's Mr. Grumpy Pants, some one experienced, or inexperienced, whether they dove the anchor or not. They're just there, and you have to stay out of their way.

Ann

[thinwater]

^^ And don't assume because someone is there that it is a good place to anchor. Don't assume anything.


Anchoring is such a weird topic. A mixture of facts, engineering, experience, lore, opinion, and mysticism. And some times we confuse them.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Anchoring is such a weird topic. A mixture of facts, engineering, experience, lore, opinion, and mysticism. And some times we confuse them.

and it's made to sound so complex

[seadog47]

In this type of situation I cruise by and ask how much scope he has out before dropping the hook. After settling in I use a Leica Disto E7500 to take a measurement so if he complains I can say with certainty that I am X number of feet from him.
Bob
KK42-41

[CptCrunchie]

Originally Posted by seadog47

In this type of situation I cruise by and ask how much scope he has out before dropping the hook. After settling in I use a Leica Disto E7500 to take a measurement so if he complains I can say with certainty that I am X number of feet from him.
Bob
KK42-41

Wow! $500 for a range finder? Those are expensive!

The GolfBuddy is only $113, and it is very accurate.

[alctel]

I found boaters up in BC and further north generally were pretty good at anchoring, better than down in Mexico anyway (my theory is because south cali has so few decent anchorages, a lot of people from there don't get much practice at it before they head south)

I haven't had a problem in 5 years of boating anyway, closest I came to it was a 70' ferro that was swinging differently to me in a very tight San Diego anchorage in light wind, and we both fended off by hand and then sat and had a nice chat while waiting to see what the wind would do.

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

Wow! $500 for a range finder? Those are expensive!

The GolfBuddy is only $113, and it is very accurate.

I often cheat and use my radar

[ras1974sib]

Offer a beer and conduct a brief class on anchoring.