Another Damm Sailboat!

[AlaskaProf]

Rams innocent anchored powerboat while maneuvering in harbor!

 

[mvweebles]

Was he on starboard tack?

 

[Shrew]

The training ship Danmark was being escorted by tugs when it collided with the USS Minneapolis St. Paul (LCS 21), which was moored at the time.

At the risk of being pedantic, you cannot collide with a vessel moored or anchored. That is an ALLISION rather than a COLLISION. I would not normally point this out, but professional writers for a marine based publication should know the difference.

 

[HTurner]

Since the Danmark was being tugged and I assume being piloted... who is at fault?

 

[AlaskaProf]

I would not normally point this out, but professional writers for a marine based publication should know the difference.

Yeah, the USNI News has similar problem:

Video of the incident shows the jibboom of the sailing ship crunching into the bow of the LCS.

Seems pretty clear that they backed the taffrail and the spanker boom into the other vessel.

 

[socalrider]

Rams innocent anchored powerboat while maneuvering in harbor!

In (possible) defense of the sailboat, it appears it had a tug escort? Not sure what that means, but shouldn't the tugs have been responsible for keeping this from happening?

At the risk of being pedantic, you cannot collide with a vessel moored or anchored. That is an ALLISION rather than a COLLISION. I would not normally point this out, but professional writers for a marine based publication should know the difference.

Wow - that's a nice bit of pedantry there! Is that true of any stationary object, or just moored/anchored vessels? Does one allide with a dock?

 

[garbler]

Cases like this are fun for ship surveyors as you have a potential three party claim, USN, towing company and I believe a foreign Govt owned ship, the Danmark. I’ve worked quite a few towing lability losses and they can run years and volumes of interviews and sometimes depositions if it goes legal.

1. The USN frequently will waive a claim if damage is insignificant or absent, no deployment delays or injuries. They can refuse to cooperate or testify as a military right like when they run at night without lights. Often if one of their ships fouls and ruins fishing gear or chops a tow like what occurred off Mayport years ago. They just pay up and it goes away. Too many restrictions trying to sue the U.S. Govt’s military unless you are a foreign state.

2. I’m sure there was a legally required pilot aboard. In admiralty law the pilot is considered an employee of the ship owner. Pilots are only required to exercise “ Due Care “ and not “ infallibility “. Pilots are considered local water experts and treated as such in claims or court cases. The piloted vessel must be capable of safe navigation free of any defects that would compromise handling. The pilot is not responsible for the actions of the crew as this is the ship owners problem. If the pilot is negligent and is required by law to be onboard this fact alone can work in the shipowner and his crews favor since they had no choice but to comply with the pilots decisions or the option of ascertaining the pilots competence on the route and weather or current conditions at the time of the casualty.

3. Towing contracts almost never include a warranty. It is implied when hired that they will provide tugs of sufficient horsepower, manuervability, design, equipment, and crewed with skilled operators to complete the job. Negligent operations or equipment failures usually result in shared or sole liability for damages to vessel (s),injury, loss of cargo and delays resulting in loss of income and surveyor fees.

These are the bare bone basics only and can get incredibly complicated in some claims

Rick

 

[psneeld]

In (possible) defense of the sailboat, it appears it had a tug escort? Not sure what that means, but shouldn't the tugs have been responsible for keeping this from happening?



Wow - that's a nice bit of pedantry there! Is that true of any stationary object, or just moored/anchored vessels? Does one allide with a dock?

Simplified version

Collision between 2 vessels underway.

Allision between one vessel underway and any fixed object...moored vessel, dock, bridge, etc.

 

[garbler]

Simplified version

Collision between 2 vessels underway.

Allision between one vessel underway and any fixed object...moored vessel, dock, bridge, etc.

That pretty much says it all as far as I know

Rick

 

[Hippocampus]

Learned something. Thank you.

 

[backinblue]

To add to the fun and/or education....

Groundings and strandings are probably the most common types of marine casualties. A grounding is when a ship strikes the seabed, while a stranding is when the ship then remains there for some length of time. Both can damage a vessel and result in oil spills depending on the ocean bottom type (rocky, sandy, muddy?), sea conditions, and severity of the event (is the ship a little scraped or did it break open?).

Flooding means taking on excessive water in one or more of the spaces on a ship (e.g., the engine room), while foundering is basically taking on water to the point where the vessel becomes unstable and begins to sink or capsize. Note that "foundering" is different than "floundering," which is to struggle or move aimlessly.

 

[Sealife]

To add interest, the Danmark was towed out backwards at at least 5 knts all the way out towards Ft. McHenry as viewed from my slip. Very odd. Best I could figure it was maybe heading to dry dock at Bethlehem Steel.

 

[Sababa]

Simplified version

Collision between 2 vessels underway.

Allision between one vessel underway and any fixed object...moored vessel, dock, bridge, etc.

Thank you for this! I was recently scratching my head wondering why the ColRegs didn’t expressly deal with responsibilities of or in relation to moored vessels, thinking it odd that they weren’t included as a specific example under the heading of vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver. And the answer is it’s outside the scope of the regulations, which deal with responsibility to avoid collisions, not allisions!

So what are the latter responsibilities? I found this interesting synopsis that basically says under the Oregon Rule, a moving vessel is presumed at fault when it hits a stationary object and has the burden of showing the opposite, except when the Pennsylvania Rule applies, which presumes at least some fault on the part of a ship that is in violation of a statutory rule, such as, in the Mike Hooks Dredging case, where the moored ship is anchored in an active channel. Fascinating stuff!

 

[Shrew]

Is that true of any stationary object, or just moored/anchored vessels? Does one allide with a dock?

https://naylorlaw.com/blog/allision/

The nautical definition of an allision is “the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary.”

-----------------

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allision

(nautical) The striking of a vessel against a fixed object; the act of alliding or an instance thereof.

==================

I honestly believe it applies to a vessel striking/dashing upon any fixed object, or stationary vessel not underway (docked, moored, anchored). In this case, the moored vessel has no opportunity to attempt to avoid the incident.

 

[garbler]

I’m sure my comments will bore most of you but this was my bread & butter for almost forty years. At my age I recall most of this but have to go to my library for more details. The “ Oregon “ ruling established the foundation for much of the allision rulings. The “ Oregon “ case established the ‘ right to safely navigate in navigable waters ‘. That stationary objects or vessels must not impede navigation. Bridges are not always exempt from liability. Bridges either draw or swing are liable if negligent operation can be proven. Any vessel underway must be able to prove it was not at fault “ in reasonable care under the circumstances “. Though this is very vague it nevertheless is the way the Admiralty Courts handle such claims. There are four general rules that can presume a moving vessel is not at fault with stationary objects or vessels.

The stationary object is not visible, ie, sunken

Contact was made during “ normal “ mooring or docking procedures
since the damaged object should have been able to withstand impact.
rotten piles, poorly built or maintained dolphins, etc.

Waterway draw or swing bridges that are obligated to keep waterways
open fail due to negligent operation or mechanical failure

Stationary objects guilty of statutory or other faults.

Rick

 

[psneeld]

I’m sure my comments will bore most of you but this was my bread & butter for almost forty years. At my age I recall most of this but have to go to my library for more details. The “ Oregon “ ruling established the foundation for much of the allision rulings. The “ Oregon “ case established the ‘ right to safely navigate in navigable waters ‘. That stationary objects or vessels must not impede navigation. Bridges are not always exempt from liability. Bridges either draw or swing are liable if negligent operation can be proven. Any vessel underway must be able to prove it was not at fault “ in reasonable care under the circumstances “. Though this is very vague it nevertheless is the way the Admiralty Courts handle such claims. There are four general rules that can presume a moving vessel is not at fault with stationary objects or vessels.

The stationary object is not visible, ie, sunken

Contact was made during “ normal “ mooring or docking procedures
since the damaged object should have been able to withstand impact.
rotten piles, poorly built or maintained dolphins, etc.

Waterway draw or swing bridges that are obligated to keep waterways
open fail due to negligent operation or mechanical failure

Stationary objects guilty of statutory or other faults.

Rick

Thanks for the guidance.

Often in COLREGs discussions.....so many on internet forums try to argue the rules based on a simple reading of them.

By studying them further as they are interpreted through the eyes admiralty law and others highly experienced, one sees that simply following one rule at a time or interpreting them as black and white in every case isn't really how it works.

Trying to explain the difference is difficult.

 

[mvweebles]

Thanks for the guidance.

Often in COLREGs discussions.....so many on internet forums try to argue the rules based on a simple reading of them.

By studying them further as they are interpreted through the eyes admiralty law and others highly experienced, one sees that simply following one rule at a time or interpreting them as black and white in every case isn't really how it works.

Trying to explain the difference is difficult.

Of course there are exceptions and special circumstances, but i'll pushback a bit on waving the "it depends" flag too quickly.

Garbler gives four adjudicated examples where an underway vessel is not necessarily at fault when it strikes a stationary object (such as hitting a submerged object). The presence of exceptions and case law may create an outlier, but the overwhelming rule stands: if you're underway and you hit something that's stationary or anchored, you're at fault. Don't do it. Is there an exception? Yep. Does it undermine the rule? Nope.

Peter

 

[garbler]

Of course there are exceptions and special circumstances, but i'll pushback a bit on waving the "it depends" flag too quickly.

Garbler gives four adjudicated examples where an underway vessel is not necessarily at fault when it strikes a stationary object (such as hitting a submerged object). The presence of exceptions and case law may create an outlier, but the overwhelming rule stands: if you're underway and you hit something that's stationary or anchored, you're at fault. Don't do it. Is there an exception? Yep. Does it undermine the rule? Nope.

Peter

Absolutely. I’ve provided a very very basic case law interpretation however in marine claims where weather, tides and current, visibility etc almost always come into play it sometimes seems like exceptions are the rule. I’m no admiralty lawyer or expert by any means though my old job dealt with these claims and they interest me but please don’t drag me into deep water on this.

Rick

 

[mvweebles]

Absolutely. I’ve provided a very very basic case law interpretation however in marine claims where weather, tides and current, visibility etc almost always come into play it sometimes seems like exceptions are the rule. I’m no admiralty lawyer or expert by any means though my old job dealt with these claims and they interest me but please don’t drag me into deep water on this.



Rick

Not trying to open another hair-splitting debate on COLREGS, as a matter of fact, trying to just get back to the Rules. I appreciated your post because it showed how narrow the exceptions are - for purposes of <65' recreational boat, they are deminimus. Clutter in an otherwise fairly clear world of navigation Rules.

For the purposes of recreational boats, if you hit a stationary object or an anchored vessel, 99.9999% of the time you're at fault (at the very least, presumption is so that you'll have a really, really steep hill to climb to prove otherwise). If you ass-end a boat in an overtaking situation, 99.9999% of the time, you're at fault. If you hit the starboard side of an underway motorized vessel in a crossing situation, 99.99% of the time you're at fault (slightly lower percentage is intended). Pointing out the 0.00001% instances as "it depends" is a mental exercise, not a practical one

Why do i care? Few recreational boaters have a robust knowledge of all the rules on the first place. Obscuring and obfuscation with "it depends" just makes it worse. The exceptions are interesting, but in the end, for recreational mariners, the Rules are pretty straightforward. Lawyers make a living out of creating and expanding gray areas. They don't need our help.

Peter

 

[backinblue]

Peter, I 99% agree with you, however, I do find the exceptions interesting to think about, such as a boat anchored in a navigatable channel having some fault.

As a teen I remember a friend was riding a motorcycle on a main road and a car pulled out in front of him from a parking lot and he T-boned the car and flew over the hood and landed in the road with just some scraped and bruises. The cop cited my friend because he did not have a m/c license and the cop stated that technically he should not have been on the road where he hit the car so he was at fault.

 

[psneeld]

Land based accidents and water based are based on 2 different concepts of law.

A boat anchored in a navigable channel still has responsibilities to show they are anchored, even more aggressively because they are anchored in navigable channel.

 

[mvweebles]

Peter, I 99% agree with you, however, I do find the exceptions interesting to think about, such as a boat anchored in a navigatable channel having some fault.

As a teen I remember a friend was riding a motorcycle on a main road and a car pulled out in front of him from a parking lot and he T-boned the car and flew over the hood and landed in the road with just some scraped and bruises. The cop cited my friend because he did not have a m/c license and the cop stated that technically he should not have been on the road where he hit the car so he was at fault.

And I agree with you - the exceptions are very interesting. I just get tired of using rare exceptions as an excuse not to answer a question. Sorry for the rant.

Glad your friend was okay after the MC accident.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

Land based accidents and water based are based on 2 different concepts of law.

A boat anchored in a navigable channel still has responsibilities to show they are anchored, even more aggressively because they are anchored in navigable channel.

In the original post, the exceptions are extremely narrow due to size and type of commercial vessels, and that they were operating in a relatively confined space. If the damages were greater, would take a phalanx of insurance adjusters and lawyers to figure it out. These exceptions would be meaningless to a recreational vessel - "it depends" is like saying because there are meteorites that destroy roads, you should plan an alternative route to the grocery store in case a meteorite strikes your normal route. Is it possible? Sure is.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

In the original post, the exceptions are extremely narrow due to size and type of commercial vessels, and that they were operating in a relatively confined space. If the damages were greater, would take a phalanx of insurance adjusters and lawyers to figure it out. These exceptions would be meaningless to a recreational vessel - "it depends" is like saying because there are meteorites that destroy roads, you should plan an alternative route to the grocery store in case a meteorite strikes your normal route. Is it possible? Sure is.

Peter

You said you were tired of exceptions, well me too.

I'll just fade into the woodwork here..... I disagree with many of your points, not because they are wrong, I just see them through different eyes and reasoning.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. MV. "Is it possible?"

 

[mvweebles]

Greetings,
Mr. MV. "Is it possible?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is your first inserted image without a chimpanzee.

Must be the aliens......

 

[garbler]

As Peter notes for most recreational boaters the legal lines are pretty clear so if you hit a vessel in a mooring field or charted anchorage, “ ass-end “ a vessel etc you’ll be found liable except perhaps if there are injuries or death then the legal system and underwriters will surely argue and stretch the lines primarily because the settlement numbers go ballistic.

The fact is most marine underwriters are hesitant to go to court since they have a terrible track record and the claims department almost always boils it down to minimizing the loss and almost never show much interest in setting legal precedents or the costs associated with long drawn out legal battles. Once you file a claim and it goes legal you, the boat owner, have little or no say in your defense right or wrong. If indeed the assured is a large profitable commercial account then it can often be different but not recreational boaters. So it would be sort of foolish to count on your insurance company to spend time and money trying to pursue the exceptions especially if there the USCG files 2692 (Casualty Report) calling it operators negligence.

Rick

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,

Mr. MV....The disguise worked!

 

[mvweebles]

You said you were tired of exceptions, well me too.

I think sometimes the more experienced of us get wrapped-around the axle (prop shaft?). Harry Truman, tired of "on-the-the-other-hand" type responses once said "What I wouldn't give for a one-handed economist."

For overly broad questions, "It depends" is the best and only answer. Occasionally we get a post along the lines of "Hi - I'm a newbie and want to buy a boat. What kind should I get?"

But when it comes to Nav Rules (BTW - Located HERE for anyone interested), a narrow caveat is only rarely needed - something along the lines of "Except under extraordinary circumstances, the answer is blah-blah-blah." That shares a lot of information and allows people to benefit from knowledge and experience, but still covers the rare exception without seeming condescending or overly cautious.

I disagree with many of your points, not because they are wrong,

Ummm.....?????

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

Have had trouble after hearing about claims and court decisions over the years. Personal take aways are:
Learn and follow colregs
Fault and liability in admiralty court mean two different things.
Even when it seems obvious to you one party was entirely at fault the court may judge the injuried/damaged party partially liable. Doesn’t make sense to me but “it is what it is”.