Sailboat collisions - Can responsibility be shared?

[BluJu]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

None that I'm aware of. A point you've made in many posts, is that the "stand on" vessel has far more responsibility - beside the various parts of rule 17, he should have sounded 5 short (34d). But I agree there is a tendency to weight higher for the failed steering/sailing rule(s). Probably would come out 60/40 with the OP getting the larger share of the blame.

Thanks all for the input, I must say this is more I've ever read about the interpretation and applicability of sailing rules. I need to read the posts mentioned about the "stand on" vessel having more responsibility.

Lodesman, in my case, your point seems to summarize the growing thread consensus. Me and the other boat should be considered "in sight of one another" because there was nothing restricting our ability to see each other with naked eye, but we both failed to do so due to bad lookout. Responsibilities shared here, or slightly higher for the stand-on vessel. Because the "vessels in sight" rules apply, and the tendency to weigh higher for failed steering/sailing, a slighty higher share of the responsibility falls on me.

Correct summary?

[inchcailloch]

Wow, No wonder lawyers are rich!

[boatman61]

Actual event in August 2000..
Boat under sail making slow headway E against ebb tide.. Second boat motorsailing N T-bones boat under sail..
Insurance ruling 50-50 liability..

[roland stockham]

I think you may want to look at two issues.
Is you sail plan such that you need a bowman on lookout when using the genoa because it obstructs the view from the helm? This is not usually practical on a short handed cruising boat so maybe you need to look at raising the foot. Can be done by adding a second clew and some reefing eyes so the foot can be rolled up when required.
Second, you mention keeping an eye on AIS. Day-sailors like the J24 rarely have transponders. Is you AIS watch leading to a false sense of security?
I think you acted as a very good skipper in this case, you just made a mistake and learned from it, fortunately with only dented pride and finances.

[TheThunderbird]

The stand-on boat just comes second in the execution of any manoeuvres deemed necessary to avoid collision.

Two blind skippers are equally responsible, as no Tack has divine privileges

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by BluJu

Correct summary?

Yes. My 60/40 is just a guesstimate - as Boatman pointed out, the courts or insurance companies are not entirely predictable.

[carstenb]

A clarification here please.

"In sight of each other" So this means physical sight? eyeball?

Radar, AIS, crystal ball (just kidding on this one) don't count?

Assuming fog, both vessels outfitted with AIS and radar - are they not "in sight of each other"?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

A clarification here please.

"In sight of each other" So this means physical sight? eyeball?

Radar, AIS, crystal ball (just kidding on this one) don't count?

Assuming fog, both vessels outfitted with AIS and radar - are they not "in sight of each other"?

Yes. Eyeball or binocular. Visual sight.

Otherwise, Rule 19, Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility, applies -- a different system. No standing on or giving way.

[robbievardon]

I do not see how anybody could apply the term from the regs "When not in sight of one another" as being applicable to two vessels (UNDER SAIL} big pole in the sky, lots of white canvas. I have just finished studying a recent maritime court case which indeed resulted in joint responsibility for the collision but 20% to 80% liability.
Deckhead any chance of a reply to my last post, plus of course some detail from your forthcoming book as requested?

[Jim Cate]

Deckhead any chance of a reply to my last post, plus of course some detail from your forthcoming book as requested?

Two things, Robbie:

1. The above is your first post in this thread, so your request is kinda hard to fulfill.

2. Dockhead (not "deckhead") is not obliged to answer each of your demands, no matter how many times you repeat them. He seems to be busy with more relevant issues than your nit picking (my opinion).

Jim

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes. Eyeball or binocular. Visual sight.

Otherwise, Rule 19, Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility, applies -- a different system. No standing on or giving way.

yes - of course. I wasn't thinking. Rule 19 covers it.

Dockhead - in your travels through the Kiel Canal - you've noticed the "ferry" that is actually a car, hung by cables from the bridge above it. You've probably alos noticed that it carries normal ships lights, red/green.

But this cable car never touches the water - so it can't be a boat/ship. Nor can it be "wing in ground" - since it doesn't fly.

I thought it an interesting phenomina when I saw it from your boat - but got busy and forgot to discuss it with you.

What would you classify it as? And what colregs would be appropriate for interaction with this non-sailing/non-flying "boat"? aside, of course from "do no hit it"?

I didn't take a picture back then - but I'm sure you are aware of what I am talking about

[robbievardon]

Lodesman, Under British Admiralty Law Insurance Companies are not involved in aportioning blame. This is done by a High Court Judge sitting with 2 expert advisers. Their jurisdiction is not restricted to British waters. The recent case I was studying arose from a collision in the Middle East. Neither ship was British registered.

[Deltasailor]

Originally Posted by rbk

The answer to your post title, can liability be shared, in Canada and most likely the US as well...absolutely. There are many, easy to find rulings that support this even where you'd expect it to be a one sided ruling. The most unobvious that I've read was a house boat on a lake encountered mechanical failure and captain was working on engine with crew helping. Approaching power boat improperly trimmed bow up, intoxicated hits said houseboat, injuries and property damage etc, goes to court...powerboat MUST be at fault...not entirely. I believe the liability was split something like 80/20 in favour of the house boat. The 20% was for the houseboat captains failure to maintain or assign a proper lookout and indicate inability to maneuver.

He should have raised the D for Delta flag I am manoevering with difficulty.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actual event in August 2000..
Boat under sail making slow headway E against ebb tide.. Second boat motorsailing N T-bones boat under sail..
Insurance ruling 50-50 liability..

Thanks.
Not Admiralty Court, but definitely relevant to the OPs question.

This does suggest that the "failure to maintain a lookout" was taken by the Insurers to override any obligations "in sight of each other".

[robbievardon]

Jim Cate, I appologise for the misspelling of dockheads name. I like any other person hate my name being misspelt. If I was it would most certainly not be an e.
So in your opinion I am Nit picking, whereas StuM and Dockhead despite using the word in a post above to describe their conversation are not? Am I to assume that you will not be replying to this as you "are not obliged to"