Skippers responsibility/liability

[Rum_Pirate]

What is the Skippers responsibility/liability when an incident happens resulting loss of life/major injury to a person on his boat IF that person was not wearing a Life Jacket or a harness?

Ditto and if the Skipper had told them to put one on and they ignored his advice/instruction?

Doesn't the buck stop with the skipper/owner?

 

[SAWDOC]

Mutiny!!!

Sounds very like grounds for cat o nine tails!!

If they don't cooperate, skip sould assert one's authority - In our case (usually with spoilt kids of any age) a dramatic "all right we're returning to port " manouvre lasting all of 30 seconds until my partner "talks me out of it" is usually enough to restore order.

If skip thinks LJ's are required, crew has no option.

 

[NUTMEG]

Hmm

Unless you were charging for passengers or engaged in commercial activity I would have thought 'duty of care' H&S stuff would not be relevent. However when I watched the missus struggling for her life after we capsized our tender last year, I was overwhelmed with guilt and a sense of responsibility. She has not been afloat since, but I know that without LJ's we would both be dead. So to ensure a clear(ish) concience I have a 100% LJ policy from jetty to jetty regardless of weather etc. Only take them off in the cabin or when getting on stool in clubhouse bar

 

[Rum_Pirate]

I watched the missus struggling for her life after we capsized our tender last year, I was overwhelmed with guilt and a sense of responsibility. She has not been afloat since, but I know that without LJ's we would both be dead.

Care to expand a little so that the rest of us might benefit from reading it?

 

[SAWDOC]

Unless you were charging for passengers or engaged in commercial activity I would have thought 'duty of care' H&S stuff would not be relevent. However when I watched the missus struggling for her life after we capsized our tender last year, I was overwhelmed with guilt and a sense of responsibility. She has not been afloat since, but I know that without LJ's we would both be dead. So to ensure a clear(ish) concience I have a 100% LJ policy from jetty to jetty regardless of weather etc. Only take them off in the cabin or when getting on stool in clubhouse bar

I'm convinced that the short hop from swinging mooring ashore is often the most perilous part of the voyage, particularly if using a small inflatable - skip often needs to concentrate which is not that easy after long day etc. non regular crew assume they are ashore once they step into dinghy, gabbing away etc....

 

[tcm]

ooh tough one. I take fairly unknown crew on longish trips and have consderd that if anything happens to them - then altho there mite not be a criminal case, there could easily be a civil action, say from their insurance company. Well, there's a boat to go after for starters so perhaps worth a pop.

At this stage i think i am ok - but with Eire making it law to wear LJ, well, it might become different. If it was law in UK, then I'd makem wear LJ's al the time which i have to say on some trips would be a bit daft - take LJ off, go swimming in carib or med, get back on boat, put LJ on...

 

[Kawasaki]

Unless you were charging for passengers or engaged in commercial activity I would have thought 'duty of care' H&S stuff would not be relevent. However when I watched the missus struggling for her life after we capsized our tender last year, I was overwhelmed with guilt and a sense of responsibility.

Cool it Man
There is no Guilt involved here
Yep, I realise your sense of responsibility
Been there t shirt etc


She has not been afloat since,
Same happened to Me and Her a lot of years back
Eventually We did and have gone to sea regularly
just take your time about it


but I know that without LJ's we would both be dead. So to ensure a clear(ish) concience I have a 100% LJ policy from jetty to jetty regardless of weather etc. Only take them off in the cabin or when getting on stool in clubhouse bar

That is good
Most 'dunkings' seem to occur betwixt dinghy and boat or shore.
When we are off gaurd or blasse about this risk!

I take fare paying passengers out sometimes
OK , I do the H& S bit etc etc etc

Swmbo chastises me sometimes when I tell Her the various gigs I do Commercially

'You didn't look after us when we started boating YER OLD DAFT GIT'
Etc

Crikey
They never forget.
Just as well I suppose!

 

[EdWingfield]

What is the Skippers responsibility/liability when an incident happens resulting loss of life/major injury to a person on his boat IF that person was not wearing a Life Jacket or a harness?

Ditto and if the Skipper had told them to put one on and they ignored his advice/instruction?

I'd think that as long as the leisure sailor skipper has not been reckless or neglectful he has no liability. The crew accepted the risk.

 

[Ubergeekian]

What is the Skippers responsibility/liability when an incident happens resulting loss of life/major injury to a person on his boat IF that person was not wearing a Life Jacket or a harness?

Does the term "skipper" have any real legal significance? After all, it's title given sometimes by consenting adults playing together.

Would he captain of a football team be liable if a player was injured?

 

[Krusty]

What is the Skippers responsibility/liability when an incident happens resulting loss of life/major injury to a person on his boat IF that person was not wearing a Life Jacket or a harness?
Ditto and if the Skipper had told them to put one on and they ignored his advice/instruction?
Doesn't the buck stop with the skipper/owner?

I cannot give a reference (maybe someone with access to records can) but this situation has occured and there was a Court of Inquiry (?) into the death. I think it was in the late 60's or 70's.
Of course, under our beloved H&S regime, the legal position could have changed, but I doubt it. At the time, it was highly relevant to my activities, so I remember the essence of the case:

A "Colin Archer' yacht was crossing the North sea, with three on board. One of the crew was a highly experienced sailor/seaman assisting the owner-skipper & wife with the passage.
They encountered a severe southerly blow and were obliged to run before it under a headsail (probably hanked). Something happened which demanded action up forward, and the experienced crew offered (decided?) to deal with it. The skipper insisted he first put on a lifejacket, but the man persistently refused. The wife heard all this and recounted it in court.
The vessel was either overwhelmed or broached, the crew disappeared and was lost.
Independent evidence about the weather and sea state had been called, and the court recognised that it was impossible for the boat to reverse course. The skipper was exonerated.

Why were the crew not already wearing lifejackets? I can only guess that they were in a wheel-house and the need to go on deck was not anticipated.
These days the court might take a different view and regard that as a failure by the skipper, but if the man had such an aversion to wearing a lifejacket the outcome would have been the same. Your can take a horse to water...
I remember thinking that the guy lost was perhaps far more experienced than the owner and was at the helm (wheel?) at the time. Handing over the wheel to the less experienced owner to go on deck may have led to a broach.
The 'Skipper' may have simply failed to prevent the death, but only through lack of helming skill in severe conditions. How many on this forum would have done better, I wonder?

 

[nonitoo]

Rules of the boat are that lifejackets will be worn when at sea. I explain this to everyone and GIVE them their jacket and show them how to use it.

If anyone does not wear it then we still go ahead with the day out but it is unlikely they will be invited aboard again.

Needless to say, our usual friends all know the score, the reason for it, and are happy about it.

As far as the legalities are concerned I understand that, provided you have behaved in a reasonable manner and made provision for everyone's safety, you are unlikely to be found to be negligent if something goes wrong.

Tom

 

[alant]

Does the term "skipper" have any real legal significance? After all, it's title given sometimes by consenting adults playing together.

Would he captain of a football team be liable if a player was injured?

If it is a registered vessel, then it comes under the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act, with all its resposibilities as Skipper, irrespective of paying passengers.

The Skipper is deemed 'in charge', in the same way as a car driver is 'in charge'.
Cause 3rd party damage or deathe & face the consequences!

 

[Poignard]

If it is a registered vessel, then it comes under the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act, with all its resposibilities as Skipper, irrespective of paying passengers.

In that case, I'll get myself a peaked cap, and a jacket with brass buttons and for gold rings.

 

[Spyro]

Is the term skipper actually relevent in court when it comes to pleasure vessels? I know this is sounding a bit like the log book thread.
Who actually is the skipper?
I have sailed on a boat that has joint owners and both have been on board, We didn't actually decide who was skipper before starting out so who would be skipper in that case? When I go sailing I sometimes say to people with me " Ok you are skip today get on with it" so who would be considered in charge in that case in court?
I also know some seem to take the term skipper to a bit too serious. I have a friend who is a fairly experienced sailor go away on a 4 day trip last year and the "skipper" barked orders and wouldn't let anyone else helm for the whole trip. Needless to say it will be his last trip with him. No doubt who was skipper then.
Has a skipper of a pleasure vessel ever been charged or held resposible for death of a crew member?

 

[Ubergeekian]

If it is a registered vessel, then it comes under the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act, with all its resposibilities as Skipper, irrespective of paying passengers.

The Skipper is deemed 'in charge', in the same way as a car driver is 'in charge'.
Cause 3rd party damage or deathe & face the consequences!

You haven't convinced me. No qualifications are needed to be a skipper and there is not, as far as I am aware, and need to have a skipper at all. I've had a look at the Merchant Shipping Act, but I can't see anything there about skippers.

I suspect that it's more likely to come under a common law duty of care, and that saying "but i wasn't the skipper" would not be much of a defence.

The car parallel is an interesting one. How common is it for anyone other than the driver of a car to be prosecuted for causing an accident?
I am, as always, open to correction on the facts.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Is the term skipper actually relevent in court when it comes to pleasure vessels?

I strongly doubt it. It's just another silly name, like "commodore" (I have been a member, at various times, of five gliding clubs and none of them felt the need to call the chairman an Air Vice-Marshal. But I digress.) Why don't we call the person in charge of a yacht the captain?

Has a skipper of a pleasure vessel ever been charged or held resposible for death of a crew member?

More to the point, has that happened because of perceived deficiencies as "skipper" and not as "person who did the navigation" or "person who was steering" or "person who owned the boat"?

 

[EdWingfield]

I have a friend who is a fairly experienced sailor go away on a 4 day trip last year and the "skipper" barked orders and wouldn't let anyone else helm for the whole trip.

Then he was a rubbish skipper and you were right to move on.

I'd think the first thing a skipper would do is train the beginners to become helmsmen, after that watchkeepers etc. Then he can relax a little to his nav duties. He'd even get some sleep knowing they'd wake him if nec.

 

[nonitoo]

Surely the person concerned is the one who has the charge of the vessel and is responsible for the safe operation thereof.

Doesn't matter what you call him/her they are still the one responsible for the vessel and persons aboard and would have to answer for this if there ever was a problem regarding negligence.

Tom

 

[Ubergeekian]

Surely the person concerned is the one who has the charge of the vessel and is responsible for the safe operation thereof.

Doesn't matter what you call him/her they are still the one responsible for the vessel and persons aboard and would have to answer for this if there ever was a problem regarding negligence.

But what does "has the charge of the vessel" mean? Does there have to be someone who has charge? Would s/he answer if the helmsman was negligent?

If someone does take overall responsibility - which can only mean that the other people on the boat freely cede it - then they can certainly expect a greater degree of legal liability. However, I am not at all convinced that this would excuse bad navigation from a (different) navigator, bad helming from a (different) helmsman or inadequate maintenance from a (different) owner.

 

[nonitoo]

But what does "has the charge of the vessel" mean? Does there have to be someone who has charge? Would s/he answer if the helmsman was negligent?

If someone does take overall responsibility - which can only mean that the other people on the boat freely cede it - then they can certainly expect a greater degree of legal liability. However, I am not at all convinced that this would excuse bad navigation from a (different) navigator, bad helming from a (different) helmsman or inadequate maintenance from a (different) owner.

Whether you like it or not there has to be accountability and if, after an incident, the MCA make accusations of negligence, it will be made against a person or persons. Please note I am talking about negligence not a mistake or error of judgement - they are quite different beasts.

I imagine the MCA will start with the owner who, in turn and if he is not there at the time, must have delegated the task to a suitable person (skipper ?). He may well, in turn delegate tasks, helming, navigation etc., to others.

Prior to such delegation it is the responsibility of the delegator to establish that the person to whom he is assigning the task is able/competent to undertake the duties before delegating the task. Not doing so could imply negligence on the delegators part.

This competency may be assessed in a number of ways, from certification (on a large vessel) down to personal knowledge of the person and their experience (small boat) but, whatever, the process is the same.

Your comments about others ceding responsibility seem strange. If you are not competent in a specific field (navigation, helming) how can you assume that you can have any initial responsibility for it and, consequently, have any rights regarding the retention or ceding of that responsibility to others. Your only choices in such a case are whether you remain on board or get off.

I have tried to be as general in my comments as possible.

Tom