Hardmy
Well-Known Member
I came across this article which annoyed me quite a bit:
The judgment can be read here: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/telecharger_rtf.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000033354298&origine=juriJudi
A short résumé of the judgment:
In April 2009, MY Cristina passed on the wrong side of the Pointe Batéguier cardinal buoy and grounded in the navigation exclusion zone. The weather was very good. The voluntary organisation "Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer" (SNSM) were called in by the CROSS MED and rescued the 8 passengers of the craft. A diver inspected the damages to the hull; but parts of it were not accessible. No water was found in the bilges. Then it was decided after request of the skipper to proceed with the tow. Nevertheless, the SNSM wasn’t fully sure about the integrity of the hull, so they brought a petrol pump on board the stricken vessel before leaving the scene. Unfortunately, the casualty sank later near Cap Croisette despite pumping efforts.
Afterwards, the Italian owner and her brother as skipper sued the SNSM on the grounds that SNSM were responsible for the sinking. The owners lost in the first instance, but in second instance they won and SNSM was condemned to pay 30% of several surveys, refloating and parking costs, a lump sum relative to the loss of the vessel as well as compensation for lack of use (!) and the full costs of the procedure.
The expertise revealed that the hull had ruptured around the struts. This leak hadn’t been identified because the floors in the aft cabin were screwed down; therefore nobody checked whether the hull was watertight at this place. The tow of the MY from the rocks was carried out sideways, so no additional damages occurred during this operation.
The SNSM admitted not having inspected EVERY areas of the hull, but tried to argue that the tow took place under the control of the skipper who knows the vessel the best and that he was the one who requested the tow. Furthermore, a professional salvage company could only arrive on the scene next day so the boat would have spent the whole night in a vulnerable position. Still, the 2nd instance court gave 30% of responsibility of the sinking to SNSM even if the initial origin of the mishap (ie the grounding) lies with the skipper. If I understand well, SNSM should have told the skipper that they don’t take the responsibility of the tow operation.
Isn’t that a surprisingly hard judgment? Is there something we can understand between the lines? Why did the surveyors (the first one gave up) need 3 years to render an analysis? The SNSM mentions also the obstructive behavior of the owners during the survey process.
Law vs Morale: I guy infringes law by cruising in a restricted area, runs aground on a well chartered rock. He asks for a rescue, then for a tow. He knows that the tow from the lifeboat will probably cost much less than a professional salvage company, which could be on scene the next day only. The SNSM’s duty is to save human life only; but they do him the favor to save his boat. OK, it goes wrong but is SNSM really at fault? I mean, it’s a non-profit organization run by volunteers!
Such kind of judgment could invite SNSM to stick to its primary purpose only: saving lives. They would then in the future let sink your boat, even if it could be saved with not too many efforts.
This tendency to sue the rescuer when there is a mishap is really annoying. We see it also in the alps. At the end of the day, nobody will take you out of the sh=(“§)%. People will stop to help each other, because when things go sour, you will be liable. E.g. in the Levkas canal, it is quite common that SY’s get grounded when they take a buoy on the wrong side. It is more than natural to help, especially in Greece when you know that a CG involment can lead to huge problems.
And you, would you give a tow, even if you can get into legal troubles in doing this?
The judgment can be read here: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/telecharger_rtf.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000033354298&origine=juriJudi
A short résumé of the judgment:
In April 2009, MY Cristina passed on the wrong side of the Pointe Batéguier cardinal buoy and grounded in the navigation exclusion zone. The weather was very good. The voluntary organisation "Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer" (SNSM) were called in by the CROSS MED and rescued the 8 passengers of the craft. A diver inspected the damages to the hull; but parts of it were not accessible. No water was found in the bilges. Then it was decided after request of the skipper to proceed with the tow. Nevertheless, the SNSM wasn’t fully sure about the integrity of the hull, so they brought a petrol pump on board the stricken vessel before leaving the scene. Unfortunately, the casualty sank later near Cap Croisette despite pumping efforts.
Afterwards, the Italian owner and her brother as skipper sued the SNSM on the grounds that SNSM were responsible for the sinking. The owners lost in the first instance, but in second instance they won and SNSM was condemned to pay 30% of several surveys, refloating and parking costs, a lump sum relative to the loss of the vessel as well as compensation for lack of use (!) and the full costs of the procedure.
The expertise revealed that the hull had ruptured around the struts. This leak hadn’t been identified because the floors in the aft cabin were screwed down; therefore nobody checked whether the hull was watertight at this place. The tow of the MY from the rocks was carried out sideways, so no additional damages occurred during this operation.
The SNSM admitted not having inspected EVERY areas of the hull, but tried to argue that the tow took place under the control of the skipper who knows the vessel the best and that he was the one who requested the tow. Furthermore, a professional salvage company could only arrive on the scene next day so the boat would have spent the whole night in a vulnerable position. Still, the 2nd instance court gave 30% of responsibility of the sinking to SNSM even if the initial origin of the mishap (ie the grounding) lies with the skipper. If I understand well, SNSM should have told the skipper that they don’t take the responsibility of the tow operation.
Isn’t that a surprisingly hard judgment? Is there something we can understand between the lines? Why did the surveyors (the first one gave up) need 3 years to render an analysis? The SNSM mentions also the obstructive behavior of the owners during the survey process.
Law vs Morale: I guy infringes law by cruising in a restricted area, runs aground on a well chartered rock. He asks for a rescue, then for a tow. He knows that the tow from the lifeboat will probably cost much less than a professional salvage company, which could be on scene the next day only. The SNSM’s duty is to save human life only; but they do him the favor to save his boat. OK, it goes wrong but is SNSM really at fault? I mean, it’s a non-profit organization run by volunteers!
Such kind of judgment could invite SNSM to stick to its primary purpose only: saving lives. They would then in the future let sink your boat, even if it could be saved with not too many efforts.
This tendency to sue the rescuer when there is a mishap is really annoying. We see it also in the alps. At the end of the day, nobody will take you out of the sh=(“§)%. People will stop to help each other, because when things go sour, you will be liable. E.g. in the Levkas canal, it is quite common that SY’s get grounded when they take a buoy on the wrong side. It is more than natural to help, especially in Greece when you know that a CG involment can lead to huge problems.
And you, would you give a tow, even if you can get into legal troubles in doing this?
