IRPCS v. RRS

[awol]

I had an interesting conversation with a man (who should know) who claimed that if a racing incident ends up in court it is the IRPCS that applies not the RRS. Now I know that RRS Rule 3 states

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal.​

but he reckoned that that only applies to results, etc.. When it comes to damages the courts will rule based on IRPCS alone.
Can anyone corroborate this?

 

[Talulah]

There is a well known Court case, which I can't remember now but on appeal a previous decision was overturned. In summary, competitors in the race have accepted the rules of the race and they take precedent over the IRPCS. Anyone not involved in the race, but having an accident with someone racing then IRPCS applies.

 

[Debenair]

Of course at night the IRPCS are substituted for the RRS

 

[LouisBrowne]

The rules that govern liability between competitors in a race are the rules under which the race is run, i.e. the rules specified in the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions. The case is Talula is thinking of is probably The Satanita ( Clarke v Dunraven 1897).

 

[jamesjermain]

I had an interesting conversation with a man (who should know) who claimed that if a racing incident ends up in court it is the IRPCS that applies not the RRS. Now I know that RRS Rule 3 states

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal.​

but he reckoned that that only applies to results, etc.. When it comes to damages the courts will rule based on IRPCS alone.
Can anyone corroborate this?

A collision between two yachts in the same race is legally governed by the racing rules - including the stipulation that Colregs apply after dark. However, when a racing yacht meets a cruising yacht Colregs only apply - so legally a racing skipper cannot shout: 'get out of my way I'm racing'.

 

[prv]

How does a racing incident ending up in court at all square with rule c as posted?

Pete

 

[Iain C]

A collision between two yachts in the same race is legally governed by the racing rules - including the stipulation that Colregs apply after dark. However, when a racing yacht meets a cruising yacht Colregs only apply - so legally a racing skipper cannot shout: 'get out of my way I'm racing'.

Shame the Sunsail yacht who seemed to be quite prepared to ram me on Sunday wasn't aware of that. I had to dump my main and do a last minute bearaway around his transom...I was on stbd, going upwind! The idiot had the audacity to shout "BUT I'M RACING!" at me when I explained that he was on port and I was on stbd!

I race myself, and as a cruiser I will stay out of their way whenever possible. However when they are powering upwind at at least twice my speed, fully crewed, it takes an early tweak of a few degrees, and a good shout of "hold your course" and we all know where we stand. Instead, everyone stayed glued to their rail, there seemed to be no attempt to stand people by for a crash tack, and just shouts of "STARBOARD" and mad "out of the way" gesticulation from the driver.

Seriously unimpressed and I had a bloody good mind to have a word with Sunsail to ensure that skippers chartering boats have at least some basic IRPCS/RRS knowledge before handing over the keys to their boats, and a degree of common sense and courtesy...

 

[prv]

Seriously unimpressed and I had a bloody good mind to have a word with Sunsail

Please do, they won't know otherwise. Although unlike a club they may not be able to have meaningful words with the skipper in their turn.

The alternative I guess is a "near miss" report to the MAIB, who may take it up if they feel there's a general issue and safety could be improved for the future.

Pete

 

[l'escargot]

... bloody good mind to have a word with Sunsail to ensure that skippers chartering boats have at least some basic IRPCS/RRS knowledge before handing over the keys to their boats, and a degree of common sense and courtesy...

Good luck with that, but don't get your hopes up...

 

[wotayottie]

so legally a racing skipper cannot shout: 'get out of my way I'm racing'.

legally he can shout whatever he wants provided it isnt obscene or defamatory or racist etc. Problem is that he is wrong thinking you should get out of his way. But then once he has shouted that then it becomes clear that he, the give way boat, is not going to do so and you, the stand on boat, have an obligation to take avoiding action. So he might be wrong but you still have to react.

 

[wotayottie]

The rules that govern liability between competitors in a race are the rules under which the race is run, i.e. the rules specified in the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions. The case is Talula is thinking of is probably The Satanita ( Clarke v Dunraven 1897).

Reading that case it is essentially about contract law and not about IRPCS vs Racing rules. And dont the IRPCS supercede it anyway? Unless there is another more recent and relevant case I would not be confident that sailing rules beat IRPCS which after all are statute law.

To put it another way, you might well be able to write a set of rules governing car races on the roads but those rules would not exempt you from the road traffic acts.

 

[bedouin]

How does a racing incident ending up in court at all square with rule c as posted?

Pete

I think that refers to using legal means to change the result of the race, rather than to claim damages after an incident.

 

[jerrytug]

IRPCS obliges everyone to avoid collision. And don't the racers know it! They aren't ignorant but are briefed to milk Rule 17b as well as 2a. Hooray Henry pussflaps. Signed Jerry.

 

[GruffT]

IRPCS obliges everyone to avoid collision. And don't the racers know it! They aren't ignorant but are briefed to milk Rule 17b as well as 2a. Hooray Henry pussflaps. Signed Jerry.

RRS14. Hitting people isn't cool under either scheme.

 

[flaming]

I had an interesting conversation with a man (who should know) who claimed that if a racing incident ends up in court it is the IRPCS that applies not the RRS. Now I know that RRS Rule 3 states

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal.​

but he reckoned that that only applies to results, etc.. When it comes to damages the courts will rule based on IRPCS alone.
Can anyone corroborate this?

Your man is wrong.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/

 

[awol]

Your man is wrong.

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/

Thank you very much for that, very helpful. What I had failed to understand was "my man" was referring to a damages claim arising from a racing incident where a protest had not been made, or had been disallowed for procedural reasons, and thus no adjudication under the RRS was available.

 

[flaming]

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where a collision involving significant damage would result in an invalid protest, or no protest, as if damage is obvious the requirements of flag flying/hailing go out of the window plus don't forget that a retirement is the same as a DSQ from an admission of fault point of view. But anyway...

Even if there was no ruling (and btw the current rules and guidelines make it clear that protest rulings have no weight for insurance purposes - an arse covering move if ever I saw one...) the insurance companies would HAVE to asses blame using RRS. To do anything else would be total nonsense, and I would think leave them vunerable under the Lords ruling mentioned in that link.

Imagine a situation where I am being overtaken and wish to luff. Something goes wrong and there is a collision and damage. At the time I was within my rights under RRS to luff (with certain constraints) but totally not obeying COLREGS as they would apply between non racing boats. How on earth can my actions be judged retrospectively by any rules other than those that were being applied by the participants at the time? That would be like having a head on crash in England then being told the case will be judged in France so the fault is with the person driving on the left!

 

[FWB]

Falmouth racing craft have right of way over non racing craft.
Harbour bye law 13.

 

[Blue5]

Shame the Sunsail yacht who seemed to be quite prepared to ram me on Sunday wasn't aware of that. I had to dump my main and do a last minute bearaway around his transom...I was on stbd, going upwind! The idiot had the audacity to shout "BUT I'M RACING!" at me when I explained that he was on port and I was on stbd!

I race myself, and as a cruiser I will stay out of their way whenever possible. However when they are powering upwind at at least twice my speed, fully crewed, it takes an early tweak of a few degrees, and a good shout of "hold your course" and we all know where we stand. Instead, everyone stayed glued to their rail, there seemed to be no attempt to stand people by for a crash tack, and just shouts of "STARBOARD" and mad "out of the way" gesticulation from the driver.

Seriously unimpressed and I had a bloody good mind to have a word with Sunsail to ensure that skippers chartering boats have at least some basic IRPCS/RRS knowledge before handing over the keys to their boats, and a degree of common sense and courtesy...

+1

 

[awol]

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where a collision involving significant damage would result in an invalid protest, or no protest, as if damage is obvious the requirements of flag flying/hailing go out of the window plus don't forget that a retirement is the same as a DSQ from an admission of fault point of view. But anyway...

Even if there was no ruling (and btw the current rules and guidelines make it clear that protest rulings have no weight for insurance purposes - an arse covering move if ever I saw one...) the insurance companies would HAVE to asses blame using RRS. To do anything else would be total nonsense, and I would think leave them vunerable under the Lords ruling mentioned in that link.

Imagine a situation where I am being overtaken and wish to luff. Something goes wrong and there is a collision and damage. At the time I was within my rights under RRS to luff (with certain constraints) but totally not obeying COLREGS as they would apply between non racing boats. How on earth can my actions be judged retrospectively by any rules other than those that were being applied by the participants at the time? That would be like having a head on crash in England then being told the case will be judged in France so the fault is with the person driving on the left!

Thanks again. You have mirrored my side of the conversation and our logic seems impeccable. "My man's" argument was based on IRPCS being statute law and taking priority over what is basically a gentlemen's agreement. His simile was 2 men agreeing to a duel - the survivor being unlikely to escape criminal charges. No doubt we shall continue the discussion ad absurdum the next time we meet or until the bar closes!
At the risk of starting yet another IRPCS thread - your overtaking boat is required to keep clear "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II" - the rule about the stand-on vessel's obligation to maintain course and speed is in that bit.