A Skipper's Responsibilities - RYA Legal

[Tranona]

Do you want to know if there is a leagaly recognised qualification for a skipper?
Its called ICC.

Not sure the ICC has any legal status. It is certainly not a legal requirement to have one in the UK - indeed there is no legal requirement to have any qualification at all to use a pleasure craft.

The ICC came about to try and standardise certificates of competence in many of the European inland waterways. It is also recognised, both informally and formally in many countries where there is a legal requirement for a skipper to be competent, or as a way of indicating competence for example for insurance purposes. More background information on the certificate and its uses on the RYA site.

 

[maxi77]

The some what scary implication of some posters is that they believe that because there is no legal requirement for them to be certificated to command a vessel then they have no legal obligations to either their crew/passengers or other seafarers.

 

[GrahamM376]

The reason being at least to have a succinict document to give to a little policeman in Portugal if he demands you have something which is not a legal requirement for a UK registered vessel...

You seem to forget that any state can impose its own requirements on vessels visiting its waters, whatever their nationality. Most don't, Portuguese try to and won't take a blind bit of notice of any document you show them unless it's issued by the Portuguese authorities and duly notarised.

 

[Enya]

I have pondered this issue of the skippers responsibility following a couple of incidents when racing which could have had very serious consequences. I saw my responsibility as making sure that all crew had the necessary gear and that the boat was as safe as possible. They were all experienced sailors, possibly more so than I. None the less, I was skipper and I probably did not have the necessary experience to anticipate all of the potential risks we were running. I was reliant on the experience of the crew to ensure our safety.

Where would I have stood had our MOB drowned or our collision resulted in injury - just 2 incidents?

I am certainly conscientious and very aware of my duty of care but does that extend to not going sailing beyond my experience level? Where do you draw the line?

Any thoughts?

 

[lw395]

I have pondered this issue of the skippers responsibility following a couple of incidents when racing which could have had very serious consequences. I saw my responsibility as making sure that all crew had the necessary gear and that the boat was as safe as possible. They were all experienced sailors, possibly more so than I. None the less, I was skipper and I probably did not have the necessary experience to anticipate all of the potential risks we were running. I was reliant on the experience of the crew to ensure our safety.

Where would I have stood had our MOB drowned or our collision resulted in injury - just 2 incidents?

I am certainly conscientious and very aware of my duty of care but does that extend to not going sailing beyond my experience level? Where do you draw the line?

Any thoughts?

I think there is a difference between extending your experience level in a reasonable way, and taking risks beyond your competence.
Collisions happen, and MOB happens, but some are just bad luck, some are the inevitable consequence of poor seamanship. Most are a blend of both.
I think a skipper who recklessly caused one of these events, when he should reasonably have known he was out of his depth could be in trouble legally. It is a hard line to draw, but it is like driving your car. If you crash and kill someone you are in trouble. If you just crash and nobody gets hurt, that's just bad luck.
The complicating factor on a yacht is the owner is not necessarily the skipper, who is not necessarily steering. All 3 can be 'in charge' legally.

 

[dt4134]

The complicating factor on a yacht is the owner is not necessarily the skipper, who is not necessarily steering. All 3 can be 'in charge' legally.

What's the basis for that statement?

The only time I've ever heard of a helmsman being considered to have been in charge is the incident on Clear Lake in the US, but that is a (rather stupid) pecularity of Californian law covering inland lakes and has no reference to the UK.

 

[liverpool]

is it relevant to ask "what would a reasonably experienced competant skipper have done?" Also it may be helpful when you are deciding on your approach as skipper to consider how it will sound explaining your actions/decisions to a court.

 

[dt4134]

I have pondered this issue of the skippers responsibility following a couple of incidents when racing which could have had very serious consequences. I saw my responsibility as making sure that all crew had the necessary gear and that the boat was as safe as possible. They were all experienced sailors, possibly more so than I. None the less, I was skipper and I probably did not have the necessary experience to anticipate all of the potential risks we were running. I was reliant on the experience of the crew to ensure our safety.

Where would I have stood had our MOB drowned or our collision resulted in injury - just 2 incidents?

I am certainly conscientious and very aware of my duty of care but does that extend to not going sailing beyond my experience level? Where do you draw the line?

Any thoughts?

It is quite a common situation. on racing boats. You've got to trust the people you've put in the various roles on board but also keep an eye on the safety aspects.

I don't know how you run your boat, but I find inexperienced skippers find it harder to let go of the decisions that should be delegated, which gives them less time to focus on the stuff that the really should be looking after, which is the safety of the vessel & safety of the crew, and of course deciding whether or not to continue racing.

Even if you're not making the lower level decisions or running the boathandling (i.e. sail handling) or tactics, you should be able to tell the difference between a well-oiled machine and the Keystone Cops racing team. If you see your crew are struggling, that's the time to try to bring a bit of order, or ease back a bit, or decide just to give up and hold a training session.

If you're also helming, as many skippers do, then it is even more important that you are strict about not getting distracted by the smaller things.

 

[Enya]

I guess the point about shared responsibility would need to be untangled in my examples. My crew who would actually sail the boat in these circumstances were consulted about the conditions and were keen to go. Remember, these are experienced strong sailors. As skipper, my judgement required me to make a judgement of their maturity and skills and in effect their judgement. What are the responsibilities of the crew to themselves? Does the buck rest with the skipper? I am not sure Duty of care cuts it. I have a feeling that the leisure skipper may need to avoid risks that potentially may lead to a serious injury or is it really an adult decision for each sailor?

This is the nub of it. Can adults make their own decision to take risks or does the leisure skipper have an over-riding duty to protect them?

 

[dt4134]

I guess the point about shared responsibility would need to be untangled in my examples. My crew who would actually sail the boat in these circumstances were consulted about the conditions and were keen to go. Remember, these are experienced strong sailors. As skipper, my judgement required me to make a judgement of their maturity and skills and in effect their judgement. What are the responsibilities of the crew to themselves? Does the buck rest with the skipper? I am not sure Duty of care cuts it. I have a feeling that the leisure skipper may need to avoid risks that potentially may lead to a serious injury or is it really an adult decision for each sailor?

This is the nub of it. Can adults make their own decision to take risks or does the leisure skipper have an over-riding duty to protect them?

Well obviously the crew have a duty of care too, to their crewmates and (I presume) themselves. As you describe it they have the expertise to know what they're getting in to and are adults. I'd be very surprised if a court didn't draw a quite significant distinction between an experienced race crew and a novice cruising crew.

But you do have to make a judgement on their abilities and teamwork, it's part of being in charge. If you're not happy that someone in the crew is going about a job sufficiently safely either through recklessness or lack of competence, you can't ignore it. Say something to change the behaviour or way of working, swap people around, or in extremis, retire from the race.

You'll have a pretty good idea yourself already, I presume, how the practices on your boat compare to others in the fleet.

 

[wotayottie]

This is the nub of it. Can adults make their own decision to take risks or does the leisure skipper have an over-riding duty to protect them?

Had your MOB drowned or the collision resulted in injury, you as the skipper would have been vulnerable. Leaving aside the Vortex style criminal proceedings under the merchant shipping acts etc, you as the man in charge could well have been sued by the injured or the relatives of the dead for negligence. They would have to prove that you did not take reasonable care and the definition of reasonable would depend on things like your experience and training as well as what a good skipper would have done in the circumstances.

The courts would not regard racing as a risk free activity and would take into account the experience of the crew and their decision to sail in the knowledge of the risks involved. But that wont give you absolution from stupid mistakes.

Apparently in these situations the RYA often provide expert evidence of what a well trained competent skipper would have done

 

[Uricanejack]

I don't think it worth while getting all worked up about who is resposable and liabilty. Carry at min 3rd party insurance. Don't wory about the Law.
As skipper just do your best to bring boat back intact and crew undamaged. The crew undamaged is the important bit and only thing worth worying about. every thing else can be covered and fixed by insurance.
Be carefull not to damage crew and law will not be an issue.
Buy the sound of your post you appear to care about your crew coming back undamaged

 

[shaunksb]

what the legal responsibilities are for a leisure Skipper, particularly in regard to any crew

They are the same for a boat owner as they are for a home owner.



__________________________

 

[jimbaerselman]

"law" is being used very loosely in this discussion.

Over-simplifying a bit . . .

Criminal law is when the state can take action against someone because a defined criminal act is suspected (statute law broken if you will). In our context, manslaughter is the most likely, or infringements of bye laws such as exceeding speed limits or hindering the navigation of large vessels.

All the other law being talked about is civil law. Fundamentally, these are arguments between legal entities (persons or companies) about who is responsible for what when something goes wrong, and as a result, one or other party asks for compensation. Arguments such as these are settled by the balance of probability, or, cheaper, arbitration or agreement. It depends how much you want to pay to third parties, such as lawyers, who are tempted, of course, to advise you to fight the case.

There is no statute law as such which applies to UK small recreation vessels.

However, what you do with these vessels may expose you to criminal charges. Removing a boat with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of its use is theft. Deliberately capsizing a dinghy to drown a non-swimmer may be murder. A high speed vessel running over a swimmer is another possible case. Proving any is difficult - "beyond reasonable doubt".

In countries whose legal systems are built upon the Napoleonic code, life is different. Over simplifying again, you only do things permitted by law - unlicensed activities can break statute law.

Of course, there are general permissions which can relieve the stultifying effect of such state control. But I went through a fascinating series of legal challenges setting up windsurfing in Greece. There were permissions for dinghy sailing (and loads of regulations about how it should be conducted) And another set of different of permissions about how "balancers" (canoes) should be used. Both required one more buoyancy aid aboard than the number of crew. So, since there was no knowledge that windsurfers existed at the time, and existing rules were impractical, monthly fines for breaking the law were normal.

There's now a general exemption for sporting activities, which luckily meant that Olympic sailors didn't have to carry approved first aid booklets (written in Greek), an additional "approved" buoyancy aid, a life ring mounted in the rigging, a national ensign, and a set of flares.

Hmmm. But there's still nothing in the rules about boat's buoyancy, or ability to right the vessel after a capsize. Imperfect stuff, telling people how to do things which evolve rapidly. Advise is then much better than regulation.

Statute law. A great method for allowing bureaucrats to charge a rent for any innovative activity. No wonder it expanded so successfully as a system - good for government employees.

 

[alant]

What's the basis for that statement?

The only time I've ever heard of a helmsman being considered to have been in charge is the incident on Clear Lake in the US, but that is a (rather stupid) pecularity of Californian law covering inland lakes and has no reference to the UK.

Read the statement by RYA Legal "the skipper/owner of the vessel will owe a duty of care towards the crew and guests on board."

 

[alant]

Had your MOB drowned or the collision resulted in injury, you as the skipper would have been vulnerable. Leaving aside the Vortex style criminal proceedings under the merchant shipping acts etc, you as the man in charge could well have been sued by the injured or the relatives of the dead for negligence. They would have to prove that you did not take reasonable care and the definition of reasonable would depend on things like your experience and training as well as what a good skipper would have done in the circumstances.

The courts would not regard racing as a risk free activity and would take into account the experience of the crew and their decision to sail in the knowledge of the risks involved. But that wont give you absolution from stupid mistakes.

Apparently in these situations the RYA often provide expert evidence of what a well trained competent skipper would have done

Agreed, IMO, even on a Race Boat, the Skipper cannot "delegate" responsibility to any crew.

The buck stops with him!

 

[dt4134]

Read the statement by RYA Legal "the skipper/owner of the vessel will owe a duty of care towards the crew and guests on board."

I find it very hard to believe that the RYA consider that there are circumstances where the helmsman is in charge rather than the skipper. Your quote has nothing to do with the point from the earlier poster, which I was questioning.

 

[onesea]

Agreed, IMO, even on a Race Boat, the Skipper cannot "delegate" responsibility to any crew.

The buck stops with him!

But here is a twist for you the owner does not need to be the skipper...

The skipper is not necessarily the most experienced, person on board. So it would be hoped he would take advice from other crew members?

The skipper can delegate all he wants to who he want but at the end of the day as you say he is responsible.

There is no reason that "command" and all its responsibilities cannot be passed between 2 people on board...

I often do this to try and make SWMBO take some responsibility, also to allow me to drink copious amounts of alcohol

Yet she simply reminds me as she is skipper my tap is stopped and then to add insult any thing she is not happy with she delegates me to do.

To give me the experience...

Want to go sailing tomorrow?

 

[alant]

I find it very hard to believe that the RYA consider that there are circumstances where the helmsman is in charge rather than the skipper. Your quote has nothing to do with the point from the earlier poster, which I was questioning.

The original post was
"Originally Posted by lw395
The complicating factor on a yacht is the owner is not necessarily the skipper, who is not necessarily steering. All 3 can be 'in charge' legally."

It wasn't just about the helmsman!

 

[alant]

But here is a twist for you the owner does not need to be the skipper...

The skipper is not necessarily the most experienced, person on board. So it would be hoped he would take advice from other crew members?

The skipper can delegate all he wants to who he want but at the end of the day as you say he is responsible.

There is no reason that "command" and all its responsibilities cannot be passed between 2 people on board...

I often do this to try and make SWMBO take some responsibility, also to allow me to drink copious amounts of alcohol

Yet she simply reminds me as she is skipper my tap is stopped and then to add insult any thing she is not happy with she delegates me to do.

To give me the experience...

Want to go sailing tomorrow?

Just me & your SWMBO?

Please send photo first pls


























of the boat you idiot!