When neighboring boat disagrees

[stillbuilding]

So if the legal situation is to apportion blame between the parties involved, standing up and advising the late comer of a danger and not moving out would quite likely demonstrate that they stayed even in the face of recognised danger and thereby were MORE responsible for any subsequent damage and thereby attract a greater share of the cost of damages!?

Might it be better to not say anything at all. Just bugger off or live with it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by stillbuilding

So if the legal situation is to apportion blame between the parties involved, standing up and advising the late comer of a danger and not moving out would quite likely demonstrate that they stayed even in the face of recognised danger and thereby were MORE responsible for any subsequent damage and thereby attract a greater share of the cost of damages!?

Might it be better to not say anything at all. Just bugger off or live with it.

Yes, absolutely. This could cut both ways. Warning the latecomer might be evidence of good seamanship or might be evidence of poor seamanship if there was some way for you to move yourself.



We have been talking about the harder question of when there is no good option for you to move yourself. But then the other guy probably can't move, either?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We have been talking about the harder question of when there is no good option for you to move yourself. But then the other guy probably can't move, either?

Yes, that is the interesting ethical part
In reality, there are usually other spots to anchor, but probably more open and less comfortable.

I would still maintain that the latecomer is in a better position to re-anchor, since he just arrived, as opposed to a boat in anchor mode.

I have moved when much bigger vessels have anchored within my comfort range, because I can see that they had no option, but to anchor where they did .

I am less considerate of a yacht arriving at 5pm and anchoring inside a group of well spaced yachts when there is ample room to be at the perimeter.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Yes, that is the interesting ethical part
In reality, there are usually other spots to anchor, but probably more open and less comfortable.

I would still maintain that the latecomer is in a better position to re-anchor, since he just arrived, as opposed to a boat in anchor mode.

I have moved when much bigger vessels have anchored within my comfort range, because I can see that they had no option, but to anchor where they did .

I am less considerate of a yacht arriving at 5pm and anchoring inside a group of well spaced yachts when there is ample room to be at the perimeter.

I agree very much with all of the above, but just note, that the law doesn't care anything about comfort, convenience, or "anchoring mode". It cares about safety, and you are required to ditch all of that if it's necessary for the safety of your own vessel.



I've actually had very few problems with other boats in anchorages in my lifetime of cruising. I was in a terrifying katabatic storm in a crowded anchorage in the middle of the night (Hvar, Croatia) where every single boat dragged, but everyone helped everyone else and somehow no boats were wrecked or even damaged. I've had the occasional boat object to what they thought was me anchoring too closely -- I usually move in that case, but sometimes not, but never a big problem. I've moved a few times when I didn't like how another boat anchored, but never thought it was a big deal ("anchoring mode", or not). I've had boats drag into me, causing minor damage, but I never ask for money for this, as I have my gel coat done over every year or two anyway. Last time someone dragged into me, I rafted him up to me to prevent further problems (it was blowing, and he had a pathetically undersized CQR), and ended up spending a pleasant evening drinking his single malt with him. I've been in very very crowded anchorages but never a bump ever as long as no one dragged. I've rarely met anyone who was really rude or really stupid, in an anchorage, although of course when it does happen, it is memorable.




I'm not at all superstitious, but why does it seem that karma is always working at sea? Why is it, that the guys who are shouting all the time and getting upset in anchorages, are the same ones who are getting into serious collisions or dragging onto rocks? Whereas the guys like CaptainWoody -- nothing bad ever seems to happen to them?


Maybe it's not actually karma -- maybe it's just that a certain attitude -- calmness, tolerance, helpfulness -- is a core part of good seamanship.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by thinwater

And if the alternative was heading out into bad weather to avoid the boat that "may" have anchored too close? I could easily argue that heading out could be bad seamanship. Hanging fenders was prudence.


So no, I do NOT buy the premise that you should always move. The aviation equivalent might be taking off into a storm to avoid the chance of hail damage on the tarmac. A prudent pilot would stay on the ground, accepting the lesser of two evils. No, he cannot prove flying would be more dangerous. I should not have to prove that leaving is more dangerous (which I could only do by having an accident), only defend the reasonableness of my reasoning for staying put.

See, that is the whole thing.
Being in command is not always opening a book and reading what rule pertains to this or that situation.
It’s experience and decision making, and knowing enough to determine when another decision needs to be made and whether or not you need to stick with your first or modify the plan.

So it’s never cut and dried, and or evolves. Sometimes moving is the correct choice, but not always.

First night I was here in George Town, I anchored in the middle of a bunch of boats, didn’t like it at all and was at a short scope to deal with so many boats in close proximity.
Middle of the night we had a squall, 30kts and rain. I got up, didn’t like what I saw and up anchored and moved, in the middle of the squall.
I moved into the shipping channel, where I knew of course that I wasn’t supposed to be and got up at day light and went and found a place to be with far fewer boats and anchored there.

Now, I made the decision that in my opinion being in the shipping channel was safer than being in that cluster of boats as I was pretty sure that no ship was showing up in the middle of the night.

Was it the correct decision? I don’t know, maybe?
I think it was as I moved at first light, but if a ship had showed up I’m certain it would have been the wrong decision.

There is not always a “right” answer, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of evils.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm not at all superstitious, but why does it seem that karma is always working at sea? Why is it, that the guys who are shouting all the time and getting upset in anchorages, are the same ones who are getting into serious collisions or dragging onto rocks? Whereas the guys like CaptainWoody -- nothing bad ever seems to happen to them?


Maybe it's not actually karma -- maybe it's just that a certain attitude -- calmness, tolerance, helpfulness -- is a core part of good seamanship.

Also not in the least bit superstitious, but this is a excellent metaphor which touches on it...
John Vigor's Blog: The Black Box Theory

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The exact same circumstances would apparently apply to the second anchored in your scenario. They deem it safer to close-anchor than to be out there. They assess the risk to be lower, even with a possible bump in the night, which they deem to be unlikely.

The responsibilities remain the same; anchor as safely as the circumstances allow.

IF you can easily move you should. Courtesy and good sense. We all agree. But I don't think there is a legal responsibility and I don't think we can create one. Or rather I throw down the challenge to find case law.



---


BUT, they were second, so it is NOT the same for them. Admiralty case law is clear on this. Search it. They are required to provide the first boat with a clear berth. Some of the cases involve the approach of a storm and it was not an exception. Liability was not divided.


Let's consider the case law. There are quite a few for ships, and they ALWAYS end the same way; the second vessel is responsible, and in my recollection, liability was never divided, as is often done. If you are second, you must keep clear, period. One difference, I suppose, is that a ship may not have sufficient crew on board to safely move.

(I could not easily paste the image files and didn't feel like looking up the links. However, the story is consistant.)

Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903 (in part)
"A ‘safe berth‘ should not be construed to mean one from which probable accident might not arise, but ample space; that is, taking into consideration all the exigencies likely to arise, either by reason of the character of the harbor, the conditions of the weather, and the season of the year, no danger of collision would arise, and close calculations should not be made, and risks run in giving room; doubts should be solved with a view of securing safety, having in view the possible contingencies that might arise, making it necessary for each vessel to take greater space than was apparently required at the moment; and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion."

American Shipping Digest, 1903. (you can google this--more Junitta information)

U.S. Admiralty Court, in the Juniata decision (no. 124-5861), found that A Vessel shall be found at fault if it…anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging, or if it fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth.

----
[Nothing novel here, only that the rulings are consistent; you must keep clear.]
Summaries from the American Shipping Digest

194. When two vessels anchor near each other, there ought to be such space left for each of them swinging to her anchor, that in ordinary circumstances the two vessels cannot come together. If such a space is not left, it is a foul berth. The pilot is alone responsible whether the vessel takes np a foul berth or not: (The Feronia v. The Northampton, A. C, Nov. 7, 1853, Shipping Gazette.)
195. A vessel held liable for giving another a foul berth, whereby a collision was occasioned: (The Betsey, v The Countess of ilorley, A. C, Nov. 22, 1853; The Lady Ann v. The Highland Chief, A. C, Dec. 7, 1853, Shipping Gazette.)
196. If a vessel takes up a foul berth and occasions consequent damage to another, she is responsible: (The Dolphin v. The Economy, A. C, March 30, 1855. Shipping Gazette.)
197. A brig fonnd liable for damage by collision in consequence of having given a schooner a foul berth: (The Diane v. The Christina A. C, Feb. 21, 1856, Shipping Gazette)
198. Vessel giving another a foul berth held liable for damage by collision: (The Express v. The Rival, A. C, Jan. 29, 1857; The Jamaica v. The Sephora, A. C, Dec. 19, 1857, Shipping Gazette.)

Every vessel coming to anchor in any harbour shall take a
clear berth in such manner that the vessel when at anchor shall be and swing clear of all other vessels and their cables and moorings, and in case of any contravention of this section the master of the vessel is liable to a fine of four hundred dollars.

UNOFFICIAL VERSION UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2011
LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO8Chap. 50:06Harbours

U.S. Admiralty Court decision number 124-5861 of 1956 says:
“A vessel shall be found at fault if it … anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging … and/or fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth.”

[GordMay]

Anchoring Etiquette: Rules Of The Rode
Some anchoring etiquette tips, from BoatUS, to keep tempers from flaring when the hook drops.
➥ https://www.boatus.com/magazine/2017...-etiquette.asp

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

...There is not always a “right” answer, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of evils.

Exactly.


If moving is practical it is probably the better choice. But it is NOT automatically the more seamanlike choice. That calculation needs to include all factors. If staying is more seamanlike, there is no reason to believe liability is to be apportioned.


The real problem with yachts is that you will never be able to prove who dragged. People will lie.


----


Another example. The only times I've been bumped (several times) is when late night bar hoppers anchored too close. When in towns where this is possible (you never know when you leave your boat) I've learned to hang fenders. That does NOT mean I knew of risk, because the other boats wern't even there yet! Delaware City comes to mind.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

IF you can easily move you should. Courtesy and good sense. We all agree. But I don't think there is a legal responsibility and I don't think we can create one. Or rather I throw down the challenge to find case law.



---


BUT, they were second, so it is NOT the same for them. Admiralty case law is clear on this. Search it. They are required to provide the first boat with a clear berth. Some of the cases involve the approach of a storm and it was not an exception. Liability was not divided.


Let's consider the case law. There are quite a few for ships, and they ALWAYS end the same way; the second vessel is responsible, and in my recollection, liability was never divided, as is often done. If you are second, you must keep clear, period. One difference, I suppose, is that a ship may not have sufficient crew on board to safely move.

(I could not easily paste the image files and didn't feel like looking up the links. However, the story is consistant.)

Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903 (in part)
"A ‘safe berth‘ should not be construed to mean one from which probable accident might not arise, but ample space; that is, taking into consideration all the exigencies likely to arise, either by reason of the character of the harbor, the conditions of the weather, and the season of the year, no danger of collision would arise, and close calculations should not be made, and risks run in giving room; doubts should be solved with a view of securing safety, having in view the possible contingencies that might arise, making it necessary for each vessel to take greater space than was apparently required at the moment; and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion."

American Shipping Digest, 1903. (you can google this--more Junitta information)

U.S. Admiralty Court, in the Juniata decision (no. 124-5861), found that A Vessel shall be found at fault if it…anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging, or if it fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth.

----
[Nothing novel here, only that the rulings are consistent; you must keep clear.]
Summaries from the American Shipping Digest

194. When two vessels anchor near each other, there ought to be such space left for each of them swinging to her anchor, that in ordinary circumstances the two vessels cannot come together. If such a space is not left, it is a foul berth. The pilot is alone responsible whether the vessel takes np a foul berth or not: (The Feronia v. The Northampton, A. C, Nov. 7, 1853, Shipping Gazette.)
195. A vessel held liable for giving another a foul berth, whereby a collision was occasioned: (The Betsey, v The Countess of ilorley, A. C, Nov. 22, 1853; The Lady Ann v. The Highland Chief, A. C, Dec. 7, 1853, Shipping Gazette.)
196. If a vessel takes up a foul berth and occasions consequent damage to another, she is responsible: (The Dolphin v. The Economy, A. C, March 30, 1855. Shipping Gazette.)
197. A brig fonnd liable for damage by collision in consequence of having given a schooner a foul berth: (The Diane v. The Christina A. C, Feb. 21, 1856, Shipping Gazette)
198. Vessel giving another a foul berth held liable for damage by collision: (The Express v. The Rival, A. C, Jan. 29, 1857; The Jamaica v. The Sephora, A. C, Dec. 19, 1857, Shipping Gazette.)

Every vessel coming to anchor in any harbour shall take a
clear berth in such manner that the vessel when at anchor shall be and swing clear of all other vessels and their cables and moorings, and in case of any contravention of this section the master of the vessel is liable to a fine of four hundred dollars.

UNOFFICIAL VERSION UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2011
LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO8Chap. 50:06Harbours

U.S. Admiralty Court decision number 124-5861 of 1956 says:
“A vessel shall be found at fault if it … anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging … and/or fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth.”

I am on the boat with no access to a law library, so can't take up your challenge (Google is a very poor law library), but you are citing through secondary sources, and only one of your cites says anything about sole liability.


And that is the famous Juniata case is all about when THREE vessels were involved in a collision, and the first anchored vessel was allowed to recover from ONE of them. This was a rare case where no fault was apportioned to one vessel in a collision.


If a case says that a second vessel "shall be found at fault", this does not indeed necessarily mean that the first vessel will not be found at fault. If you have the full text of the cases, have a look and let us know how the liability was apportioned.



The only case I can remember without a law library is the Diomed case, about a collision between two anchored vessels in Durban Roads. The 1950's I believe. The Diomed anchored too close and swung into an earlier anchored vessel. Diomed was guilty of giving the other vessel a "foul berth", but liability was divided between the vessels, 50:50 IIRC.



Another random case I can remember -- the Pearl and Jahre Venture, from about 2000 -- one ship dragged its anchor and crashed into another ship at anchor. Fault was apportioned 50:50 -- the ship whose anchor held, was equally responsible for avoiding the collision.


There are surely many more, but my subscription to Lloyd's Law Reports is recently lapsed and the nearest law library is across the Solent.





It is most definitely a principle of admiralty law, that in any collision under any circumstances, you will not get off the hook unless you can prove that there was really absolutely nothing that you could have done to prevent the collision. That's where the obligation to move comes from. Because the other vessel violated some obligation NEVER exonerates you, by itself. Because it is so rare that you can just never do anything, it is very rare that one vessel is solely liable in case of a collision, no matter how egregious the acts of one vessel were.



That's reflected in the plethora of cases holding anchored vessels partially liable in collisions with vessels under way. In all of those cases, the anchored vessels were obligated to move if they could, even in a situation with a vessel under way and under command, and were obligated to warn, and do everything else possible they could to prevent the collision, failing which, they were apportioned part of the liability, notwithstanding the egregious behavior of a ship under way colliding with an anchored vessel.



A really egregious violation of an earlier anchored boat, no matter how common it is, would be failure to keep watch. So if you anchored first, and another boat came later and anchored too close, and you went to sleep, and the other boat swung into you, I can even imagine that you would have GREATER liability than the later arriving boat, if at least someone was awake and trying to do something on the later arriving boat.



So I do stand by my earlier advice -- you MUST take action of some kind or another if you judge the situation to be unsafe, and the fact that someone has violated his obligation not to anchor too close, is no comfort to you in case of a collision, any more than it's of any comfort to you that you were the stand-on vessel, in case of a collision between vessels under way. It just doesn't work that way. You have to do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of your vessel, and yes, as A64 wrote, it can involve difficult choices between different sub-optimal courses of action.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The real problem with yachts is that you will never be able to prove who dragged. People lie

I think you can actually. Take a time / date stamped photo of your chart plotter or whatever you have that visually depicts your movement.
I know of one case that I’m pretty sure was actually two Insurence companies battling who would pay as opposed to the boat owners, and he won, based largely on a photo, like this one, you can tell I haven’t drug.


Plus just position, it’s unlikely you drug upwind. That may take witnesses of course.
Someone anchors close to me, I take a photo or two, costs nothing to do.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... The only case I can remember without a law library is the Diomed case, about a collision between two anchored vessels in Durban Roads. The 1950's I believe. The Diomed anchored too close and swung into an earlier anchored vessel. Diomed was guilty of giving the other vessel a "foul berth", but liability was divided between the vessels, 50:50 IIRC.

Another random case I can remember -- the Pearl and Jahre Venture, from about 2000 -- one ship dragged its anchor and crashed into another ship at anchor. Fault was apportioned 50:50 -- the ship whose anchor held, was equally responsible for avoiding the collision...

Damm - that's some fine memory! I'm impressed.


Lloyd's Law Reports:


THE "DIOMED." (1946) 80 Ll.L.Rep. 164
“Collision - Anchored vessels - Dragging - Foul berth - Collision between motor vessel Kota Baroe and steamship Diomed in Durban Roads - Vessels at anchor, with Diomed astern of Kota Baroe and to leeward of her - Sudden squall - Impact between stem of Diomed and port quarter of Kota Baroe, followed by further impacts between port side of Diomed and stern of Kota Baroe - Whether Diomed anchored too close to Kota Baroe and gave her foul berth or whether Kota Baroe negligently dragged her anchor - Evidence of complaint made by master of Kota Baroe, in accordance with Port Instructions, that Diomed was anchored too close.”
➥ https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=143487

THE “PEARL” AND “JAHRE VENTURE” [2003] EWHC 838 (Admlty.)
[2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 188
“Collision - Vessels at anchor - Apportionment of liability - Collision in Fujairah “B” anchorage - Allegations of fault - Whether claimants’ or defendants’ vessel 100 per cent. liable for collision - Apportionment of liability for collision.”
➥ https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=149438


“Foul Berth”
https://books.google.ca/books?id=hoV...0berth&f=false

[jmh2002]

I'm not sure if it's mentioned here already, I didn't see it, but I thought I would also add an alternative approach that may work in some circumstances.

Whilst there is always the odd bone head who simply ignores all good sense, in the past in the eastern caribbean I often found that poor anchoring etiquette was often simply the result of a lack of experience, either in general or in that particular bay or location, or during those circumstances, rather than any premeditated malice.

Having settled in for a few days or possibly weeks in what I thought was a good spot (normally further out in the cleaner, deeper water, and 'hopefully' away from more annoyances) on what was at the time a big, fast, but heavy 51 footer we often had 200+ feet of chain out. Sometimes alone onboard, or with another less experienced crew member, awning up, dinghy in the water, BBQ on, and sundowners flowing, I wasn't exactly in a hurry to up and move, even if technically I was always ready to even sail off the anchor if push came to shove.

But still there were always late arrivals, quite often bare boat charterers but not always, and a good solution that I found was to be proactive. Seeing them looking likely to anchor poorly (for us and them), I would often just quickly jump in the dinghy and run over to offer a nice welcome and some friendly (cunning plan...) advice, and even direct help if real inexperience was evident (go there, it's this deep, stop and let go the anchor now, let out this much chain, etc).

This was almost always welcomed, since at the end of the day everyone just wants to get anchored up and settled for the night. Many times I could see that the crew, especially the wives and girlfriends were quite 'frazzled', perhaps after a longer and wetter than expected sail from a neighbouring island, and the resultant frayed nerves and tempers onboard.

On the odd occasion I even had some women just step straight down into the dinghy when I was alongside, such was their frustration at the situation and their need to feel safe after a long day capped off by an anchoring debacle. Sheepish husbands would come to collect them later when everyone had calmed down.

But more often than not this welcome and help would result in an invite aboard for a drink, or vice versa, or they passed later in their dinghy on their way ashore with a thank you and some beers or a bottle of wine. I certainly didn't complain.

If for some reason new friends weren't made, as a minimum I now knew that 'this boat, over there' was now safely anchored, far enough away from me, and any extra work on my part was much more comfortably done during sundowners, rather than at 0200 when they are dragging themselves and me out of the bay to never never land.

Not everyone is a jerk, and sometimes people just have a bad day and make poor decisions. We have all done this at some point.

Cruising used to be an inclusive past time full of community spirit where everyone helped each other, so rather than debating the legal parameters and the case law, actually extending some good will and a helping hand might be another (preventative) option too...

Happy cruising!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by thinwater

IF you can easily move you should. Courtesy and good sense. We all agree. But I don't think there is a legal responsibility and I don't think we can create one. Or rather I throw down the challenge to find case law.

BUT, they were second, so it is NOT the same for them. Admiralty case law is clear on this. Search it. They are required to provide the first boat with a clear berth. Some of the cases involve the approach of a storm and it was not an exception. Liability was not divided.

The only difference is that the first boat is part of the anchoring a challenge for the second boat. The primary responsibility is to anchor safely and appropriately, given whatever limitations may exist.

I let the lawyers argue about case law. DH’s simple counters suggests your interpretations may be flawed, or at least not as cut and dry.

Originally Posted by thinwater

If moving is practical it is probably the better choice. But it is NOT automatically the more seamanlike choice. That calculation needs to include all factors. If staying is more seamanlike, there is no reason to believe liability is to be apportioned.

Exactly … for both parties. If, in the judgement of the captain, up anchoring or not anchoring, puts their vessel at greater risk compared to the alternatives, then even a close-anchoring situation may be legally and ethically superior.

Everyone has a responsibility to anchor safely and appropriately. If you deem the situation unsafe, then it is your responsibility to act.

Informing your new neighbour of your views is certainly the first step in this. The second boat DOES have a responsibility to anchor safely. You deem they have not done so. They take the opposite view. So, after this exchange is compete, if your interpretation of the situation remains that it is unsafe, you have a responsibility to act.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...I'm not at all superstitious, but why does it seem that karma is always working at sea? Why is it, that the guys who are shouting all the time and getting upset in anchorages, are the same ones who are getting into serious collisions or dragging onto rocks? Whereas the guys like CaptainWoody -- nothing bad ever seems to happen to them?

All this talk of anchor angst is nearly foreign to my experience. My single negative experience in nearly 20 years of sailing is the one I relayed earlier. All other examples have been of people going out of their way to render support and assistance to fellow boaters.

I too am not a superstitious fellow. Don’t actually believe in karma. But I do believe we shape our world’s such that we get back what we put out. If you are a “Mr Grumpy Pants” then that is how your world will appear to you.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All this talk of anchor angst is nearly foreign to my experience. My single negative experience in nearly 20 years of sailing is the one I relayed earlier. All other examples have been of people going out of their way to render support and assistance to fellow boaters.

...we shape our world’s such that we get back what we put out. If you are a “Mr Grumpy Pants” then that is how your world will appear to you.

^^^ This. Thanks Mike