A Skipper's Responsibilities - RYA Legal

[lw395]

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 helmsman is in charge on minute by minute or second by second basis.
It is the helm who collides with the other boat.
The skipper might be off watch, asleep, in which case the watch leader would have responsibility delegated to him.

Likewise, it is even possible for a crew member to be responsible.
Consider a yacht which broaches into the path of another, because the spinnaker trimmer ignores a direct instruction from the helm or skipper.

The navigator might not be helm or skipper, but can bear responsibility for an incident.

 

[shaunksb]

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

The buck stops with him!

The thing is, as far as I can see, there is no legal requirement to have a "Skipper" for pleasure craft.

There is nothing to stop several people just going for a sail.


Negligence requires someone to make a negligent act or omission and someone else to suffer from that. That could be the helmsman or winch man or cook or whoever.




__________________

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The helmsman is in charge on minute by minute or second by second basis.
It is the helm who collides with the other boat.
The skipper might be off watch, asleep, in which case the watch leader would have responsibility delegated to him.

Likewise, it is even possible for a crew member to be responsible.
Consider a yacht which broaches into the path of another, because the spinnaker trimmer ignores a direct instruction from the helm or skipper.

The navigator might not be helm or skipper, but can bear responsibility for an incident.

Moreover, there are no Solas manning requirements for pleasure boats so there is no need to have a skipper at all. I very much doubt that if a mobo with no skipper ploughed into a dozen swimmers the authorities would say: Oh dear, without a skipper there's nobody to blame. We can't blame the helmsman.

 

[alant]

The helmsman is in charge on minute by minute or second by second basis.
It is the helm who collides with the other boat.
The skipper might be off watch, asleep, in which case the watch leader would have responsibility delegated to him.

Likewise, it is even possible for a crew member to be responsible.
Consider a yacht which broaches into the path of another, because the spinnaker trimmer ignores a direct instruction from the helm or skipper.

The navigator might not be helm or skipper, but can bear responsibility for an incident.

Tell that to the Captain of HMS Nottingham, when it ran aground upon some unruly part of Oz/ He wasn't even actually onboard at the time, but still was responsible.

 

[lw395]

Tell that to the Captain of HMS Nottingham, when it ran aground upon some unruly part of Oz/ He wasn't even actually onboard at the time, but still was responsible.

He was responsible for his officers, but they were responsible too.
That's my view.

 

[alant]

Moreover, there are no Solas manning requirements for pleasure boats so there is no need to have a skipper at all. I very much doubt that if a mobo with no skipper ploughed into a dozen swimmers the authorities would say: Oh dear, without a skipper there's nobody to blame. We can't blame the helmsman.

So, as far as your concerned, no-one is in charge?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

So, as far as your concerned, no-one is in charge?

If you pushed me to guess, I would say the Helmsman would take responsibility even though he was not skipper in my example.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

He was responsible for his officers, but they were responsible too.
That's my view.

And IIRC other officers were disciplined so IIRC they clearly shared responsibility for that.

A case I am use about is Pride of Bilbao/Ouzo certainy the skipper was not the one in court. lw395 is clearly right.

 

[dt4134]

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!

The helmsman point is an extremely important one and I'm very disappointed that you are trying to confuse it just to try to get a bit of oneupmanship. Simply giving the helmsman the tiller is not giving him command. On many cruising boats the helmsman at any given time is quite likely to be an inexperienced member of crew who does not have the experience to make decisions regarding, for example, collision avoidance. Any implication that they are 'in charge' legally just gives a potential for confusion and increases the risk of an accident.

The skipper is still the skipper and in charge even if he is not necessarily steering.

If he explicitly leaves someone in charge of a watch then that person is in charge whether he is steering or not, albeit the skipper is still the skipper.

 

[Enya]

I have reached the conclusion that there is not a legal status of leisure skipper and the law therefore is applied much as some earlier posters identified, ie whether there was "negligence" on the part of the individuals involved.

That will of course include the individuals understanding of their position.

It seems to me that going to sea with crew is a serious undertaking for all concerned and particularly the person who claims the role of skipper. Perhaps the RYA should start an education programme to bring home to us all exactly how the law would view our endeavours, drawing on such case law as has been established.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have reached the conclusion that there is not a legal status of leisure skipper and the law therefore is applied much as some earlier posters identified, ie whether there was "negligence" on the part of the individuals involved.

+1.

I've not seen anything that suggests the earlier posters[1] got it wrong.

[1] eg: Post 7.

 

[Enya]

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

When judging negligence on the part of the skipper, how does one evaluate the actions of a less experienced conscientious skipper against the actions of an experienced competent skipper. Is the first negligent if they decide to take a risk which results in an accident simply because they did not foresee the risk even if all crew were in support of the decision? Can you be negligent if ignorant rather than stupid?

 

[jimi]

When judging negligence on the part of the skipper, how does one evaluate the actions of a less experienced conscientious skipper against the actions of an experienced competent skipper. Is the first negligent if they decide to take a risk which results in an accident simply because they did not foresee the risk even if all crew were in support of the decision? Can you be negligent if ignorant rather than stupid?

One could take the view that negligence includes being negigent in acquiring the competencies required. Particularly if owing a duty of care to others. On some boats I used to crew on the skipper asked his crew to sign disclaimers.

 

[alant]

When judging negligence on the part of the skipper, how does one evaluate the actions of a less experienced conscientious skipper against the actions of an experienced competent skipper. Is the first negligent if they decide to take a risk which results in an accident simply because they did not foresee the risk even if all crew were in support of the decision? Can you be negligent if ignorant rather than stupid?

There used to be a category known as 'Gross Negligence'.

 

[rotrax]

In a previous thread it was suggested that leisure Skippers were subject to many parts of the MSA. From this thread that appears to be untrue. After the HL threads perhaps it is time for an authoritive statement from Yachtings governing body. I await this with interest.

 

[dt4134]

When judging negligence on the part of the skipper, how does one evaluate the actions of a less experienced conscientious skipper against the actions of an experienced competent skipper. Is the first negligent if they decide to take a risk which results in an accident simply because they did not foresee the risk even if all crew were in support of the decision? Can you be negligent if ignorant rather than stupid?

How big a risk were you thinking of taking? What do you have in mind?

I do think you'd be compared to the norm rather than an expert racer. There is some precedence for this is the interpretation of manouvering "promptly in a seamanlike manner".

 

[shaunksb]

There used to be a category known as 'Gross Negligence'.

This was a term used in criminal negligence (normally manslaughter) which generally refers to an act or omission so reckless that injury or death could reasonably be forseen.

Eg. throwing a breeze block off a motorway bridge.


A skipper would have to go a long way before that would apply.

Simply "cocking up" would be unlikely to reach the legal definition.



_________________________

 

[alant]

This was a term used in criminal negligence (normally manslaughter) which generally refers to an act or omission so reckless that injury or death could reasonably be forseen.

Eg. throwing a breeze block off a motorway bridge.


A skipper would have to go a long way before that would apply.

Simply "cocking up" would be unlikely to reach the legal definition.



_________________________

I suppose setting off in dangerous conditions & ending up with a crewman dead, could fit still that bill.

 

[Enya]

How big a risk were you thinking of taking? What do you have in mind?

I do think you'd be compared to the norm rather than an expert racer. There is some precedence for this is the interpretation of manouvering "promptly in a seamanlike manner".

Decisions to race in challenging weather conditions is probably the main decisions that I am thinking about. How do you foresee all of the risks unless you are a very experienced competent skipper? and how do you become this person unless you race? The weather does not usually supply graded wind forces to order.

 

[dt4134]

Decisions to race in challenging weather conditions is probably the main decisions that I am thinking about. How do you foresee all of the risks unless you are a very experienced competent skipper? and how do you become this person unless you race? The weather does not usually supply graded wind forces to order.

If you're the only one at the start line then the race is unlikely to happen anyway, so in the real world you'll only be doing what the 'normal' racer is doing. In fact some race commitees have got so cautious of late that it is frustrating that racing is abandoned when it is perfectly feasible to race in those conditions.

Then, if you do race you could argue that you might do something far more recklessly than the opposition, but I doubt anybody would go that far. If you're, for example, sixth around the weather mark and the first five boats put up their spinnaker, then I would suggest you are not being negligent in putting yours up. In practice, if you have less confidence in your own and your crews abilities you much more likely not to put yours up in marginal conditions.

However, if you're sixth around the weather mark and the first five boats don't put up their spinnakers because the conditions are too heavy for them and you know that the boats and crews are better and much more skilled than yours, then it might be reckless to put yours up. However if you'd been practising heavy weather spinnaker work to gain an advantage over the boats that were better to windward, it wouldn't be reckless.

In practice, you're likely to start off as a back of the fleet boat and work your way up the fleet as your skills develop, so by the time you're the first boat around the mark you'll know whether or not you can handle putting your spinnaker up.