Mooring strop liability - boring post

[jamesjermain]

Can any yacht club lawyers help on this one?

The Plymouth QHM has circulated local yacht clubs reminding them that they have a responsibility to ensure that all their club moorings are 'fit for the purpose'.

My club, the Cargreen YC has no problem with this except that, while it provides and services the ground tackle and everything up to the top swivel, under club rules, the mooring strops are the responsibility of the mooring holder. The reason for this is that every boat is a different weight, needs strops of a different length, etc.

Club rules also state that members must undertake to provide strops which themselves are 'fit for the purpose' and provides guidelines as to size, type and method of attachment. However, the club has also heard that marine law states that the the club is liable for the whole mooring, including strops, however, and by whoever, they are attached.

The questions are these:

Is this a true statement of marine law?

Does the club's own rules and disclaimers on strops override marine law and do they absolve the club in the event of a failure of the strop. Or does the club's duty of care irrevocably extend to strops they do not supply?

Does the QHM's encyclical place an extra duty of care or is it just a non-legal reminder?

The club does, in fact, keep a fairly careful eye on members lines but does not undertake to check or service them in any way.

Sorry to bore the pants off you all

JJ

 

[oldsaltoz]

G'day James,

I don't know the answer to your question, but I bet your insurance company will you put you right, have you asked them the question?

Avagoodweekend Old Salt Oz....../forums/images/icons/cool.gif

 

[Guest]

Is it a case of accepting the rules of the club --- passes the onus onto you ??

I for one can only speak as found in both clubs I belonged to ... they set the sinkers and chains, but all riding chains and strops were responsibility of boat owner .... in fact one club would change your strop etc. if they found needing and then charge you for it ..... of course this didn't happen often and we were plainly informed about it when joining the club.

On to another factor with this .... many ride to single strop ...., I advocate using multiple strops to various securing points to ensure that I for one am always secure !! I've seen too many boats on one strop chafe through and take a sail down harbour !!

 

[Spacewaist]

Re: Mooring strop liability - boring answer

Primary responsibility for the security of a berth must rest with the owner of a vessel. If the mooring parts and the vessel damages someone or something then that is the responsibility of the vessel's owner for leaving the boat unattended an unsecure. The decision to use the mooring is his - he is responsible for checking that is is suitable for the purpose.

If a Club rents a mooring to a member, there is a warranty to the boat owner (implied of expicit) that the mooring is fit for the purpose but only those bits you rent to him. If you dont rent him the strop then the strop is his responsibility just as it is his reponsibility to make sure the strop is securely attached to the boat.

If the boat owner is uninsured or without assets, it is possible (no these days it is probable) that a plaintiff will claim against the Club. That claim would need to be formulated in tort to the effect that the Club was negligent in fulfilling its contractual responsibilities to the boat owner and that the damage was a foreseeable consequence of that negligence. Since the mooring strop is not the club's contractual responsibility (indeed it is expressly the boatowner's) then you should not be responsible to the plaintiff if the mooring strop parts.

However - I am not a lawyer so dont rely on my advice nor sue me if it is wrong!

 

[Guest]

Memory just jolted !! Getting old !!

A friend that I surveyed his Macwester some years ago was gievn access to anothers mooring in deep water. The mooring was provided by the harbour master under rental agreement ... similar to many others in that harbour.

The shackle below the water parted and my friends boat suffered serious damage by drifting down onto the shore via one or two other boats. ...... Of course he claimed against the HM and Harbour for faulty mooring etc.

He lost, as was advised to me ... for a) not being primary rentee, b) not checking suitability of the mooring for purpose. Sadly he lost the case and ended up without a boat, as his insuramnce co. refused to cover the costs quoting the case already lost ... as his responsibility..

Now what happens nowdays ???? That was about 10 years ago.

 

[FlyingSpud]

I do not know the answer, but asusme it will only be an issue if something goes wrong and someone is hurt or something damaged. They would need to show that a duty of care was owed to them by whoever they wanted to sue, and that duty had been breached leading to the loss or injury, or that a contract with them had been breached. Your contractual arragements with others would not have any effect on the person who was suing either you or the boat owner becasue he is not a party to the contract.
So, if A sues you, and he wins his case (and that would depend on the facts) , you owe him the money. If you in turn had a contract with the boat owner B and he had breached it leading to A's loss, (or, in turn you could argue B had been negligent) you may, (and it can only be may, it would depend on the facts) be able to go after B to make up what you lost, provided, always, he has the dosh, but you still owe A.
In turn, I guess that QHM is trying to cover themselves, ie, they are A and you are B, though perhaps they have some sort of crown immunity?
Maritime law is often an animal in its own right, and general principals do not always apply and there are things like by laws to consider and so on. Therefore, the only advice would be to see a maritime lawyer, or discuss it with your insurers, who probabaly employ one. You cannot rely on advice given on a web site, and this is not legal advice.

 

[steve_cronin]

I would have thought....

... but can't claim it as the correct legal position but:-

Isn't it a parallel situation to mooring up to a pontoon as you did at Mercury -( Ahh remember those chips in the rigger!!)

MDL is liable for the pontoons and don't provide warps. Their responsibility ends at the cleats. In the same vein the "Mooring" referred to by QHM ends at the swivel (or buoy if supplied) It is then your responsibility to make sure that you secure to it properly and your club in ITS rule is just enforcing this requirement. So if the riser or ground tackle fail then it is the club's responsibility but if the strop goes then it's yours.

Did you try A C-B?

Steve Cronin

But thinking about it, don't the moorings in Alderney? have something about "It is the master's responsibility to satisfy himself that this is mooring is suitable for his craft? Does that include being aware of any reduction in it's strength though?
Ask A C-B

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by steve_cronin on 08/10/2002 14:48 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: Mooring strop liability - boring answer

Thanks, Spacewaist, that is helpful and refects my instincts

JJ

 

[Cornishman]

Blimey James. From your subject line I thought you had a bad case of gribble down river there!
Why not ask QHM what he means? Mind you, you might have a job finding him as I hear he has been told to fill in that gert big 'ole he dug for the RAFT.

 

[jamesjermain]

Could be...

Could be that I've got that as well, Mike!

CYC is finding it time consuming to get info from the QHM's office and also from the RYA, whose insurance policy they have.




JJ

 

[AndrewB]

When we\'ve tried to find out why ...

... in not dissimilar circumstances in another harbour, we were unable to get a forthright answer via 'official' channels. Quite possibly (as we discovered in our case) some incident elsewhere has caused the QHM's insurers to require this be done. An issue for you now is whether or not to inform your own insurers of this. We did - and promptly got an additional restriction placed on our own policy that was only lifted when we moved elsewhere.

 

[Mirelle]

1. The Queen's Harbour Master almost certainly has special powers under bye-laws and analogous instruments, so general questions of law are probably irrelevant here.

2. The Club's disclaimer, to the extent that it does not contravene the Unfair Contract Terms Act (beware, it may, because the yachtsman may be dealing as a consumer here) and to the extent that it survives the contra proferentem rule, as a standard term dished out to all on the basis that "You want a mooring; you only get one if you agree to this lot!" would bind the owner of the yacht because the owner is in contract with the Club.

It would certainly not bind (a) third parties taking for value without notice of the term, such as a sublessor of a mooring or, more importantly, (b) any third party who suffers loss injury or damage due to the failure of a mooring strop, and who brings a claim against the Club in tort or (arguably) under the general law maritime. Such a person might be the owner of another yacht damaged by a yacht that parts her inadequate strop, for example. Such a person might claim against the club and the club might be able to recover against the strop provider.

I am not sure if this helps, but there you are.