Collision Regs

[Guest]

Just wondered, what is the legal standing of the regs ?

Do they for instance, override the normal duty of care that we are all required to exercise in our day to day activities.

ie could a dinghy sailor crash into an large steam ship that he knew was there, injuring his crew and then hold the other captain to blame?


Geoff



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MarcusMan]

Geoff

I dont have the wording to hand but there is something in the IRPCS that talks about the fact that a stand-on vessel should take avoiding action if it is apparent that a collision is inevitable if it does not. I also THINK that is says something about applying good seamanship in using the rules.

In the case you use as an example the skipper of the dinghy knew the large ship was there and failed to take avoiding action when a collision was inevitable and would be at least partly to blame.

All IMHO naturally *G*

Mark

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Friendly advice -

The owner of a boat the size of yours should, I feel, have a better working knowledge of colregs than your question implies. Not verbatim (for example not necessarily all of the lights and day shapes) but enough of the key principles to know that a stand on vessel is required to take action to avoid a collision at such time as it appears that another vessel which is required to take action in accordance with colregs to avoid collision is not going to do so.

Colregs are legally binding on all vessels at all times.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Un-Friendly advice -

Thats a bit unfair on GES. The question is perfectly valid and doesnt necessarily indicate any lack of knowledge.
Even if the question did indicate a lack of knowlewdge, isnt that what the forum is for?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

Re: Friendly advice -

Sorry if the question sounded a bit naive, I had over-edited an initial longer post.

It was really to test if there was an overlap between marine and civil law.

Geoff






<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[trev]

The colregs will get you whichever way you turn. - The 'stand on' vessel has obligations as well as the 'give way' vessel. There is also a little clause to the effect that a departure from the rules may be necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. You can't win, but if you observe the practise of good seamanship at all times you stand a good chance of survival.

<hr width=100% size=1>Trev

 

[Observer]

Re: Friendly advice -

Sorry if my first response appeared a bit tough.

On the supplementary point, the answer is "absolutely". Or rather, it's not an overlap but a quite separate branch of law. Failure to comply with colregs is an offence for which one can be prosecuted by the state (in the same way as, for example, a motoring offence or theft). I'm not sure what range of potential penalties non-compliance carries and don't know enough about criminal law to say how a case would be tried.

Quite separately, all water users will, in the branch of law called "tort", owe a duty of care to other water users. If one is in breach of that duty of care (and probably non-compliance with colregs would, prima facie, constitute a breach of the duty of care), a person who is injured or suffers loss or damage to property as a result of an accident can sue the person who the injured party believes is responsible, regardless of whether or not a prosecution for breach of colregs is pursued. This is a civil matter and would be dealt with by the civil courts. It would be usual, I think, for the criminal case to be tried first.

This is not really my area of expertise so others may wish to elaborate.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tim999]

Perhaps I can help. The collision Regs are legally enforceable and can be part of litigation both civil and criminal. With regard to criminal proceedings, they can be used in conjunction with prosecutions under many of the Maritime Acts and indeed under the auspices of EEC Regulations. (For example the Bow Belle case).

In answer to the scenario given, under such proceedings wherby Criminal Proceedings are brought, the onus of proof lies upon the prosecution (i.e. every man is innocent etc) and the level of proof is 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' This level of proof is extremely high, and is very frequently the cause of so called 'cut and dried' cases being lost.

However, they can also be used to serve litigation in civil court where the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution (The person bringing the case), but the level of proof is that of within the bounds of probability, which is a easier level of proof to attain.

This of course brings into being proportional blame and proprtional liability, and makes it possible for a person, who has no duty to act within the regulations, as the skipper in the scenario, still open to question.

Given that he fails to change course, damages his boat and no doubt, the other vessel and injures his crew. This failiure to act, although not required within the Collision Regs is not within the spirit of the regulations, and is highly questionable. I believe that he would probably be acting recklessly, and therefore would be liable for assault charges to his crew, criminal damage charges for damages to the boat, etc.

In other words, there are more than one way to skin a cat.

And yes, the previous post is quite right, a criminal proceeding takes precedence over a civil action.

Hope this makes sense.



<hr width=100% size=1>