Rafting up - Shoes On or Off when crossing other boats - Vote time

[RJJ]

Nope. Just as I don't need crew to sign any disclaimer when they come aboard as guests. If they get hurt, even if through my negligence, I am not liable. The minute I start charging them it's a different arrangement, hence the bureaucracy that (for better or worse) goes with it.

If the outside boat wants to pay to come across my decks with their grubby shoes, then again that would be a different arrangement.

 

[johnalison]

We had a Sadler 29 for many years, with a somewhat curved foredeck and wire jackstays. The wire caused a number of rafters to trip but, sad to say, we never got one into the water..

 

[JumbleDuck]

If they get hurt, even if through my negligence, I am not liable.

You what?

 

[RichardS]

You what?

In this day and age, someone's got to be liable so if it's not RJJ it's probably me.

Richard

 

[RJJ]

You what?

As I said. I have guests on my boat; if someone on a raft steps over they are a guest. In the absence of a contract or a legal right-of-way, they remain a guest. If they hurt themselves it's legally their fault, e.g. If they stub their toe on a fitting or slip on the decks because there's not enough grip, or if I forgot to tidy the excess of my mooring warp.

If I acted maliciously e.g. left broken glass lying around, there could be liability. But if I acted normally and reasonably, no way.

Unless there's something in harbour local T and Cs that constitutes a contract and spells out liability? I have never been asked to view such T and Cs (anyone else?). Nor do I want to; I think such matters can be managed informally with manners, consideration and responsibility.

 

[Bobc]

I hope I never find myself rafter up to RJJ

 

[stranded]

As I said. I have guests on my boat; if someone on a raft steps over they are a guest. In the absence of a contract or a legal right-of-way, they remain a guest. If they hurt themselves it's legally their fault, e.g. If they stub their toe on a fitting or slip on the decks because there's not enough grip, or if I forgot to tidy the excess of my mooring warp.

If I acted maliciously e.g. left broken glass lying around, there could be liability. But if I acted normally and reasonably, no way.

Unless there's something in harbour local T and Cs that constitutes a contract and spells out liability? I have never been asked to view such T and Cs (anyone else?). Nor do I want to; I think such matters can be managed informally with manners, consideration and responsibility.

I am no lawyer either, but I believe you are wrong. Same as if postie or any visitor gets a shock because your doorbell is dangerously wired. With the implicit invitation to enter your premises comes a legal responsibility to make them reasonably safe.

 

[duncan99210]

It’s simple really, this bit about access. You moor up to a pontoon which permits, encourages or mandates rafting. In doing so, you implicitly accept that folks are going to cross your boat to get ashore. That give them permission to cross your boat: it imposes on you a general duty to make sure there are no serious hazards to their transit that lie within your control.
It imposes on them (the deck crossers) a reasonable duty to follow reasonable requests: follow this route, wipe you feet on this mat. It doesn’t impose a duty to follow unreasonable or impracticable requests: change your shoes, wear these slippers, take your shoes off and cross my decks in bare feet.
And the remedy if you don’t like folks walking over your precious decks is equally simple. Don’t moor to pontoons where rafting is a required activity. Anchor off, pay for a finger berth in a marina, pick up a visitors buoy. Or just keep the boat moored in your home marina where no one will cause any wear or damage to those bits of a boat that wear out with use. I mean, how much wear and tear does a few folks crossing your deck actually cause?

 

[SiteSurfer]

Just to clarify, my point was that by telling someone to wear overshoes you become responsible.

You are placing a requirement on someone else and by that nature you really should have done your homework on H&S RA irrespective of whether it’s commercial or not. I work with volunteer organisations (in water activities) so am familiar with some of the issues surrounding non commercial H&S requirements.

I didn’t say i agreed with the nanny state mindset, it’s the way it is.

It may also be incumbent on the HM who has allowed rafting under their H&S RA to disallow any restrictions to access as well because by accepting a berth you also have to operate your boat under their Ts and Cs.

 

[JumbleDuck]

As I said. I have guests on my boat; if someone on a raft steps over they are a guest. In the absence of a contract or a legal right-of-way, they remain a guest. If they hurt themselves it's legally their fault, e.g. If they stub their toe on a fitting or slip on the decks because there's not enough grip, or if I forgot to tidy the excess of my mooring warp.

What a curious notion.

Boat fume deaths man sentenced

 

[RichardS]

I am no lawyer either, but I believe you are wrong. Same as if postie or any visitor gets a shock because your doorbell is dangerously wired. With the implicit invitation to enter your premises comes a legal responsibility to make them reasonably safe.

I do have legal training and I can confirm that you are correct. In UK common law, negligence is usually accompanied by the possibility of legal responsibility and damages, contingent upon the circumstances.

Richard

 

[johnalison]

The most likely cause of injury when crossing a rafted boat would probably be an open hatch, after dark. It would be interesting to see what the courts would make of it if someone were to step into one and break a leg. My feeling is that it is the sort of hazard to be expected on deck and the crosser is fully responsible for ensuring that wherever they step is safe, providing themselves with a torch if necessary. A naked live wire would be a different matter, though there have been times when to deploy such a weapon might have seemed attractive.

 

[Stemar]

Seems to me that I have no particular duty of care to provide a safe (=trip/slip hazard-free) means of crossing my boat. Spreading tacks or rat traps is a different matter, but trip hazards like wire jackstays, windlasses, etc are a fact of life on a boat and it behoves anyone who crosses my boat - to or from another trip hazard-laden boat - should be expected to take proper care when doing so, which includes looking where they're going and not being too drunk to do it in safety.

"You left the anchor hatch open and I fell and broke my leg" could be interesting, but did I do it, or was it a prank by one of the 15 drunken idiots that trampled across my deck at closing time before you? What about if I've rinsed the rode and I'm letting it dry?

As for stiletto heels, seriously? Has anyone actually experienced such an advanced level of idiocy?

 

[johnalison]

As for stiletto heels, seriously? Has anyone actually experienced such an advanced level of idiocy?

Yes.

 

[davidej]

It’s simple really, this bit about access. You moor up to a pontoon which permits, encourages or mandates rafting. In doing so, you implicitly accept that folks are going to cross your boat to get ashore. That give them permission to cross your boat: it imposes on you a general duty to make sure there are no serious hazards to their transit that lie within your control.
It imposes on them (the deck crossers) a reasonable duty to follow reasonable requests: follow this route, wipe you feet on this mat. It doesn’t impose a duty to follow unreasonable or impracticable requests: change your shoes, wear these slippers, take your shoes off and cross my decks in bare feet.
And the remedy if you don’t like folks walking over your precious decks is equally simple. Don’t moor to pontoons where rafting is a required activity. Anchor off, pay for a finger berth in a marina, pick up a visitors buoy. Or just keep the boat moored in your home marina where no one will cause any wear or damage to those bits of a boat that wear out with use. I mean, how much wear and tear does a few folks crossing your deck actually cause?

I think this is the most sensible post we have had so far on this subject.

 

[Poignard]

I require those boarding my yacht to turn and face the quarterdeck, stand to attention, salute, and then speedily and quietly go about their business.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I require those boarding my yacht to turn and face the quarterdeck, stand to attention, salute, and then speedily and quietly go about their business.

What if they have just been?

 

[RichardS]

As for stiletto heels, seriously? Has anyone actually experienced such an advanced level of idiocy?

It depends upon all the circumstances. If you have been on a cat like ours you would understand that unlike a monohull, it is rock solid and steady when tied alongside, does not move as you walk across it, and stepping onto the pontoon is simply that, a normal step with no break in stride straight from the boat and onto the pontoon. No guard lines or gates to navigate.

A one-legged person on a stilt could do it without breaking a sweat.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Yes.

Exactly. Which is why it is the perfect "thought crystalliser" for this subject. Job done.

Richard

 

[CAPTAIN FANTASTIC]

Stilettos and boats just do not go together, I would expect SWMBO not to wear 'heels' until ashore, until then boat shoes or similar, especially if having to cross over someone else's deck. This is partly a safety thing, high heels and a moving deck are not an equation for stability, secondly the damage stilettos can do do a wooden surface can be extreme, not so bad on GRP where it is more of a safety thing.

I am sure there are many men who will encourage and "welcome" girls with stilettos