Tamarisk1
Well-Known Member
Interesting point.
But probably a losing battle.
But probably a losing battle.
Cut Price Yacht Delivery
- Thread starter bobfrost
- Start date
KREW2
Well-Known Member
They were a proper delivery firm
http://www.bsactravelclub.co.uk/schools/qualitytime.htm
http://www.bsactravelclub.co.uk/schools/qualitytime.htm
RupertW
Well-Known Member
Seems that Offshore Nautical (CI) are not new to court cases, or transferring a business to another company in the same group after a sueable incident has happened - see this court transcript.
It's a bit harsher than my cautious summary.
http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/display.aspx?cases/JLR2003/JLR030071.htm
What this case says to me is that delivery people need personal indemnity insurance, which is designed to pay for any actions against you for negligence etc.
I still can't believe that the helmsman was held responsible for 85% not the skipper.
It's a bit harsher than my cautious summary.
http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/display.aspx?cases/JLR2003/JLR030071.htm
What this case says to me is that delivery people need personal indemnity insurance, which is designed to pay for any actions against you for negligence etc.
I still can't believe that the helmsman was held responsible for 85% not the skipper.
[3889]
...
totopalm
Well-Known Member
Re: Helmsman...
Hear Hear Graham, there but for the grace of god go any
of us,except of course for some of the clever sods, who
are so quick to sneer and criticise.
I feel so sorry for the two guys,funny thing Kismet
Hear Hear Graham, there but for the grace of god go any
of us,except of course for some of the clever sods, who
are so quick to sneer and criticise.
I feel so sorry for the two guys,funny thing Kismet
duncan
Well-Known Member
Re: Even Pantaenius...
negligence is specifically covered in my policy; wilfull (correctly in my view) is not.
willfull negligence is surely an oximoron ?
negligence is specifically covered in my policy; wilfull (correctly in my view) is not.
willfull negligence is surely an oximoron ?
pvb
Well-Known Member
Re: Even Pantaenius...
The wording that Pantaenius use is "Negligence in the operation of the Vessel which results in loss or damage by an Insured Peril is covered, but gross negligence and wilful acts of an Insured or the crew, or any person using the Vessel with the express permission of the Insured are not covered." I guess it then hinges on deciding whether an act is just "negligence", or whether it counts as "gross negligence" - which ultimately is one of the reasons we have Courts.
The wording that Pantaenius use is "Negligence in the operation of the Vessel which results in loss or damage by an Insured Peril is covered, but gross negligence and wilful acts of an Insured or the crew, or any person using the Vessel with the express permission of the Insured are not covered." I guess it then hinges on deciding whether an act is just "negligence", or whether it counts as "gross negligence" - which ultimately is one of the reasons we have Courts.
alant
Well-Known Member
Indecent?
I'm not a legal bod, but doesn't the wording "gross" mean there was more than one person involved acting together?
ie as in 'Gross indecency'
& the insurance company action in voiding this claim, certainly has an element of indecency about it!
I'm not a legal bod, but doesn't the wording "gross" mean there was more than one person involved acting together?
ie as in 'Gross indecency'
& the insurance company action in voiding this claim, certainly has an element of indecency about it!
[3889]
...
Re: Indecent?
"gross negligence n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages."
Hardly applies in this case, does it? <span style="color:green"> </span>
"gross negligence n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages."
Hardly applies in this case, does it? <span style="color:green"> </span>
alant
Well-Known Member
Re: Indecent?
"which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation"
- Does 'conscious' in this context mean deliberate?
"gross negligence "
how does this relate to just 'negligence'?
& does "simple inadvertence" just mean accidental?
"which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation"
- Does 'conscious' in this context mean deliberate?
"gross negligence "
how does this relate to just 'negligence'?
& does "simple inadvertence" just mean accidental?
bilbobaggins
N/A
Learning all the lessons
[ QUOTE ]
the boat then struck a "substantial" grade-two navigation buoy which marked the port side of the channel for inbound vessels.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of the MAIB reports - 'learn and promulgate any useful lessons' - it is worth recalling the scene of the incident, the Needles Channel at night. They were outbound, and struck a Port Channel Marker i.e. on the western side of the channel.
One recollects that the ebbing tide stream there sets - at certain stages - very strongly and suddenly onto and across the Shingles Bank, and that many boats have been swiftly 'set on' over the years, even in daylight. ( MacMillans - 'On the ebb the stream sets very strongly [3-4kts] WSW across the Shingles' )
The Shingles Elbow and Mid Shingles PCMs both lie within the Hurst Iso WRG 4s pattern, and certainly reading a chain of channel marker lights in the dark is frequently challenging. It is often difficult to determine range to a PCM visually, at times. At speed ( 18kts or 3 cables/min? ), there is little time to pick up and rectify a visual misperception. That's a pilotage issue.....
One wonders if a little more passage planning/self-briefing and a little less abdication to the electronic gear might serve us all well....
/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
[ QUOTE ]
the boat then struck a "substantial" grade-two navigation buoy which marked the port side of the channel for inbound vessels.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of the MAIB reports - 'learn and promulgate any useful lessons' - it is worth recalling the scene of the incident, the Needles Channel at night. They were outbound, and struck a Port Channel Marker i.e. on the western side of the channel.
One recollects that the ebbing tide stream there sets - at certain stages - very strongly and suddenly onto and across the Shingles Bank, and that many boats have been swiftly 'set on' over the years, even in daylight. ( MacMillans - 'On the ebb the stream sets very strongly [3-4kts] WSW across the Shingles' )
The Shingles Elbow and Mid Shingles PCMs both lie within the Hurst Iso WRG 4s pattern, and certainly reading a chain of channel marker lights in the dark is frequently challenging. It is often difficult to determine range to a PCM visually, at times. At speed ( 18kts or 3 cables/min? ), there is little time to pick up and rectify a visual misperception. That's a pilotage issue.....
One wonders if a little more passage planning/self-briefing and a little less abdication to the electronic gear might serve us all well....
/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Bergman
Well-Known Member
An easy navigational inexactitude for anyone to make.
Cheers
Cheers