Paying/contributing crew

[concentrik]

Do I deduce that you took the thread to be a cunning way of advertising his charter business and nothing to do about coding ?



I will leave you gentlemen to it.

I don't expect widespread misunderstanding but just for the avoidance of doubt, it isn't a business.

 

[Uricanejack]

I was a little bit concerened by the specific daily cost of 20 euro's. looks a lot like a fee rather than a contribution. reading further ito his site. the 20 euros goes into a kitty to by food along the way. and pay mooring cost.

20 euros a day or 140 a week is not particularly out of range for decent grub. I don't think it will include a lot of steak or lobster.

I doubt very much if this tips things over into a comercial venture.

Although his websit is better and more informative than sunsails.

As for the internet friend thing. I've never tried it myself. I know people who have gotten maried from the internet. In at least on case I think my friend met a crazy stalker woman on facebook. He is in love though.
each to thier own.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't expect my close friends to sue me when they bang their heads on the boom or on the closed sliding hatch, particularly when they were the one who closed it, or for any of the other mishaps that they manage to let befall them.

Why not? If you behaved irresponsibly in way which resulted in serious injury, would you expect your victim to say "Ah well, he's a mate" and do nothing?

 

[awol]

Why not? If you behaved irresponsibly in way which resulted in serious injury, would you expect your victim to say "Ah well, he's a mate" and do nothing?

Irresponsibly? Well, there's the rub. I would argue that for any of my close friends to get their head in the way of the boom needs no negligence from me.

 

[alant]

I don't expect my close friends to sue me when they bang their heads on the boom or on the closed sliding hatch, particularly when they were the one who closed it, or for any of the other mishaps that they manage to let befall them. Nor would I apportion any blame to my friends for any injuries my own actions cause on their boats.

I do reserve the right to insist on the wearing of life-jackets and using lifelines at night and at any other time I deem it appropriate but leave it to my friends to choose at other times. I suppose alant would regard it as my fault if they fell overboard despite the unlikelihood that a LJ or lifeline would have prevented their clumsiness?

Complete strangers, neophytes and small children are much more of a burden to a skipper and some seem only to learn by experience no matter how often or graphically dangers are described to them.

it isn't about what you expect.
Should 'any' of your crew get badly injured on your boat, I doubt, that any of their dependants, would think of your feelings, when they need to survive financially.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Irresponsibly? Well, there's the rub. I would argue that for any of my close friends to get their head in the way of the boom needs no negligence from me.

Even if you don't warn them of the dangers? Even if you keep too much sail up and gybe uncontrollably? Even if you failed to replace the obviously damaged main sheet attachment which gives way?

You may think that they're your close friends, and they may be your close friends, but I fear it is naive to expect that to get you off the hook if you clobber one of them. Apart from anything else, it is very common for public liability insurers to require a court finding of negligence before they'll pay up. Even if your friends don't want to sue you, they may have to in order for a claim to succeed. That's why you sometimes see reports of of one spouse suing another after a car accident; there is no hostility but they need a judgement for the insurers.

 

[awol]

Even if you don't warn them of the dangers? Even if you keep too much sail up and gybe uncontrollably? Even if you failed to replace the obviously damaged main sheet attachment which gives way?

I hope you're well insured if that is the way you run your boat - you sound as if you would benefit from an RYA course or two.

 

[Tranona]

Even if you don't warn them of the dangers? Even if you keep too much sail up and gybe uncontrollably? Even if you failed to replace the obviously damaged main sheet attachment which gives way?

You may think that they're your close friends, and they may be your close friends, but I fear it is naive to expect that to get you off the hook if you clobber one of them. Apart from anything else, it is very common for public liability insurers to require a court finding of negligence before they'll pay up. Even if your friends don't want to sue you, they may have to in order for a claim to succeed. That's why you sometimes see reports of of one spouse suing another after a car accident; there is no hostility but they need a judgement for the insurers.

This really is a non-issue.

From my insurance policy

Section 2 - Liabilities to Third Parties and Passengers

2.1 All sums that You legally have to pay as a result of owning Your boat, for
2.1.1 The death of or injury to any other person or any other person insured by this Policy, including anyone getting on or off or travelling on Your boat.

So there is an underlying assumption that you owe anyone on your boat a duty of care and if you are found negligent your insurance will cover it. Therefore, if you are not insured the injured party could claim directly from you.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Irresponsibly? Well, there's the rub. I would argue that for any of my close friends to get their head in the way of the boom needs no negligence from me.

I hope you're well insured if that is the way you run your boat - you sound as if you would benefit from an RYA course or two.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I was trying to point out that it possible for negligent behaviour to lead to an accident, even to friends. On re-reading your first post, though, it seems that you may have friends who regularly get clouted by the boom without you doing anything. In which case it may be better not to go sailing with them.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Section 2 - Liabilities to Third Parties and Passengers

2.1 All sums that You legally have to pay as a result of owning Your boat, for
2.1.1 The death of or injury to any other person or any other person insured by this Policy, including anyone getting on or off or travelling on Your boat.

So there is an underlying assumption that you owe anyone on your boat a duty of care and if you are found negligent your insurance will cover it. Therefore, if you are not insured the injured party could claim directly from you.

Thank you. You have confirmed both my points. Firstly, your insurance will only reimburse you for compensation which you are legally obliged to pay; that is, damages awarded against you. Secondly, no distinction is made between "friends" and other third parties.

 

[Tranona]

Thank you. You have confirmed both my points. Firstly, your insurance will only reimburse you for compensation which you are legally obliged to pay; that is, damages awarded against you. Secondly, no distinction is made between "friends" and other third parties.

And just to add a bit more into the pot, insurance on a boat used commercially is higher than for a private boat, suggesting that the risk of getting sued for negligence is potentially higher.

The "friends" bit is overplayed in these discussions as well. As you say unlikely a court would make any distinction between friends and non friends. In the same way a prosecution for not meeting the requirements for coding is unlikely to dwell on trying to define a friend - the test would be whether the boat was being operated for commercial gain. In this context a charter party could just as easily be a friend - it is whether he was a paying customer of a business that determines his status and the status of the voyage - not whether he knows the operator.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

In the same way a prosecution for not meeting the requirements for coding is unlikely to dwell on trying to define a friend - the test would be whether the boat was being operated for commercial gain.

That's not what the law says. The law specifies two conditions a pleasure boat must meet.

If the MCA/CPS ever prosecuted a leisure boat for failing to meet some commercial requirement on the basis that some people on the boat weren't "friends" [1] of the owner but where they accepted the other condition was met then the friend test would be the sole test.

Personally I think a jury would take the view that friend meant "Whoever the hell you want to sail with regardless of how you met or how long ago you met". Anything else would be ludicrous and impossible to police.

[1] Highly, highly unlikely, of course.

 

[awol]

On re-reading your first post, though, it seems that you may have friends who regularly get clouted by the boom without you doing anything. In which case it may be better not to go sailing with them.

Au contraire - my friends have sufficient savvy to keep their heads out of the way. Wish I could say the same for me.

 

[Tranona]

That's not what the law says. The law specifies two conditions a pleasure boat must meet.

If the MCA/CPS ever prosecuted a leisure boat for failing to meet some commercial requirement on the basis that some people on the boat weren't "friends" [1] of the owner but where they accepted the other condition was met then the friend test would be the sole test.

Personally I think a jury would take the view that friend meant "Whoever the hell you want to sail with regardless of how you met or how long ago you met". Anything else would be ludicrous and impossible to police.

[1] Highly, highly unlikely, of course.

As you say, highly unlikely. If you read further down the definition of pleasure craft the meaning of family is defined precisely but there is no similar definition of "friends" - the vagueness I referred to earlier. This is hardly surprising given the wide variety of relationships between owners and crews, and in the absence of a definition it would need a court to arrive at an interpretation and perhaps set a precedent. Wonder if this has ever happened!

The intention of the legislation is to make a clear distinction about what is "commercial". The issue for the OP is whether the contributions he receives would meet the first test.

 

[concentrik]

Well I sent the inquiry this morning so we'll see what happens. I dithered a bit, sleeping dogs and all, but there seems to be a fair bit of interest so I sent it just the same. As others have concluded, it does seem to rest on the two conditions which, if fulfilled, class the boat's use as a pleasure vessel. The second, concerning the taking of money seems to be easily satisfied:

contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion

are allowed and that's what the crew contribution is for: food, diesel and marina fees. In fact my system is a bit more refined than that - all the contributions (mine included - I put the daily amount in too) go into the 'fun purse', the contents of which are used to buy communal food, diesel and berthing. At the end of the crew period any remaining dosh is divvied up and given back. There's no surplus, ever, and all my past crew will attest to that.

Here in chez Concentrik we discussed the first condition a lot last night. The 'OR' part gave pause for thought. It says a pleasure vessel is:

any vessel which at the time it is being used is: - in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner

The vessel is wholly owned by an individual, so no problem there.
It is being used only for sport or pleasure, again no problem.
The pleasure of the owner OR family OR friends - it is being used for the pleasure of the owner - no problem? Well, what's the OR about? - it seems to say that any one of the conditions will satisfy doesn't it? Otherwise wouldn't it say "used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner and the immediate family and friends of the owner"

For example I win a prize if I draw a blue ticket OR a red ticket OR a green ticket. I drew a blue ticket - that's it, I win. I don't need to consider tickets of any other colour or satisfy any further conditions.

I can't read this clause as requiring that everyone aboard must fall into one of the said categories.

Anyway as I said, we'll have to wait and see.

If MCA respond saying that everyone aboard MUST be owner or family or friend then we'll doubtless see a veritable surge of skipperly affability, geniality and general bonhomie towards the sailing population at large. Anyone want to 'friend' me on Facebook?

Or, join "Club Concentrik" and satisfy 2.1.b instead:

any vessel wholly owned by or on behalf of a members' club formed for the purpose of sport or pleasure which, at the time it is being used, is used only for the sport or pleasure of members of that club or their immediate family, and for the use of which any charges levied are paid into club funds and applied for the general use of the club;

 

[JumbleDuck]

And just to add a bit more into the pot, insurance on a boat used commercially is higher than for a private boat, suggesting that the risk of getting sued for negligence is potentially higher.

Perhaps. It may also reflect the possibility that a court would hold a commercial endorsed skipper to a higher standard of competence and the likelihood that a commercially used boat would spend more time in use than one used wholly for recreation.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Au contraire - my friends have sufficient savvy to keep their heads out of the way.

Ah, so the only way they'd get clobbered is through your negligence, then? (implied smiley)

Booms terrify me. They are by far and away the easiest way to injure or kill someone sailing. Luckily my boom is way above my crew's head, even when he's standing on the bridge deck, but even so ...

 

[WestWittering]

I looked at the website and agree with the OP that it is not a business/commercial venture. However, purely from the point of view of an interested 'member of the public' I would like some information on the actual safety equipment carried onboard. Apart from anything else, this would display to any potential crew member that A) Things can go wrong & B) We have the wherewithal to deal with a worst case scenario. If I were to ask to join as crew, I would ask those questions before I rocked up with my suntan lotion & flip flops. Sadly, others aren't so aware.

Di

 

[mjcoon]

Booms terrify me. They are by far and away the easiest way to injure or kill someone sailing. Luckily my boom is way above my crew's head, even when he's standing on the bridge deck, but even so ...

Suggests height restrictions for crew, as if at Disney?

Mike.

 

[Tranona]

Perhaps. It may also reflect the possibility that a court would hold a commercial endorsed skipper to a higher standard of competence and the likelihood that a commercially used boat would spend more time in use than one used wholly for recreation.

That is the whole point of differentiating between "pleasure" and "commercial". The latter requires different standards of equipment and crewing reflecting the fact that paying customers and buying "expertise" when paying for the use of the boat and/or the skipper.

That differentiation was at the heart of the successful prosecution referred to earlier relating to the need for coding on boats doing the ARC and charging crews. Even though the boats were coded, they were not for ocean, although they were subsequently used, legally, for charter in the Caribbean.