Skippers responsibility/liability

[Shorn100]

It happens in other sports

Ubergeekian asked the question would the captain of a footbal team be considered responsible. Probably not but the match officials certainly are - even when unpaid and amateur.

A rugby referee for an Under 19 match was found culpable when one of the players was seriously injured. Youth rugby referees are not paid but they assume responsibilty of a match much in the same way a 'skipper' assumes responsibilty for a boat and the safety of its crew.

So I would say yes a skipper is liable for the safety of their crew and therefore can in the event of an accident be taken to Court to explain why they did what they did.

For more details see here...

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/court-dismisses-referees-appeal-1315128.html

Shorn

 

[lw395]

The way I see it, you have responsibilities and liabilities when using anything or doing anything that could potentially harm someone.
Be it sailing your boat or mowing the lawn or driving your car.
So you have to behave reasonably and you want to have your civil liabilities covered by the appropriate level of insurance. As owner, skipper or any other role.

The time to worry about may be when you are 'sort of in charge' on someone else's boat.
Especially if you are paid crew, but also if you are just helping?

I take offering LJ's to those able to make the choice, and insisting in the case of minors, those who do not have the experience etc or in adverse/risky conditions.
Far too many people seem to think safety on a boat begins and ends with LJ's and harnesses. I'm often more worried about injuries from winches/blocks etc and scalds from tea-making, not to mention the potential for injuries in racing collisions.

 

[gandy]

The time to worry about may be when you are 'sort of in charge' on someone else's boat. Especially if you are paid crew, but also if you are just helping?

Weren't a delivery crew recently pursued by an insurance company? Not just the delivery skipper but also the individual crew members?

 

[Ubergeekian]

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.

Absolutely. No problem with that. I think, though, that they would want to determine who was actually responsible, not who had a fairly meaningless title which requires no qualifications.

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.

Up to a point. Who, though, gave the delegator the job?

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.

On a pleasure boat the skipper can only remain skipper by the consent of the skippered, who can easily withdraw their consent. So, for example, if it's blowing F6 from the east and the skipper of a boat in Whitby says "We're leaving now" the rest can (and should) say "Get stuffed" and there's not a thing s/he can do about it.

In other words, the skipper is only the skipper because that job has been delegated to him/her by the collective will of the crew. Of course that's often a very straightforward business:

"Do you want to come sailing next weekend (understood: I am an experienced sailor and will make the necessary decisions to give you an enjoyable and safe time)?"

"Yes please (understood I'll do what you ask on board because you know more about this than me)."

but in others it may be more difficult - I used to go sailing on my boat with a colleague who had done more than me, and we made all the big decisions jointly. Neither of us was the skipper, or both of us were the skipper.

In the event of an accident, I am sure that both criminal and civil law would want to identify the person responsible. I doubt that in either case "He was skipper" would finish the search.

 

[Ubergeekian]

So I would say yes a skipper is liable for the safety of their crew and therefore can in the event of an accident be taken to Court to explain why they did what they did.

Just two questions, then.

• Is it necessary to have a skipper?
• If there is a skipper, can anyone else be responsible for an accident?

 

[Ubergeekian]

Weren't a delivery crew recently pursued by an insurance company? Not just the delivery skipper but also the individual crew members?

There was a reference to a case like this on these forums recently, but I'm afraid I can't find it. A brand new motor boat was wrecked on delivery. The owners or insurers (can't remember which) won in a court case against the delivery skipper and his friend who was at the helm. The skipper had to pay 20% of the boat's value and the helmsman 80%. Clearly the courts go after the responsible person and not the one with the title.

 

[dmmbruce]

This is interesting.

I don't race or anything, but I have refused to sail with a few people I don't trust, be it their competence, or their judgement.

Even if it is not obvious from the initial circumstances. For example that one person is clearly 'in charge'. There will always be a skipper.

If you doubt this, just watch what happens if you come across the Police, Harbour Master, Customs (eBorders) etc. Their first question will either be who is the skipper, or who is in charge, ie the de-facto skipper,? That person is then held fully responsible for EVERYTHING. The fact that something has been delegated is irrelevant. Of course it has. The skipper doesn't do everything himself!

I would have thought you all know this. So the posts on this thread are surprising.

Perhaps if you are racing, short distances, flat water, close proximity, frantic action, lots of rules, etc etc it is different.

As for the definition of 'skipper'. There is none as far as I know. It is the uk term for the person in charge of a leisure or pleasure boat not used commercially. If commercial, exams are required, and the term Captain is generally used, even here. If you leave the uk, then the skipper is almost universally called the Captain and usually you will have to sign all sorts of forms as such. Then the buck clearly stops there - with you!

Cheers

Mike

 

[nonitoo]

I would have thought you all know this. So the posts on this thread are surprising.

Cheers

Mike

I thought my posting explained this - obviously not !

I am also surprised at some of the statements, but not surprised at some of the comments.

Very common way of keeping the discussion going on a forum thread - define this - justify that - why do you say the other. Ho hum !!

I suppose I have been round the block a few times regarding the chain of command over the years and take it for granted.

Tom

 

[Ubergeekian]

I don't race or anything, but I have refused to sail with a few people I don't trust, be it their competence, or their judgement.

What would you do if they then gave you reason to doubt their competence or judgement? For example, by telling you to go onto the foredeck to swap to a larger jib - at dusk, with F5 blowing and more forecast? Or by setting a course into a lee shore harbour in F6 with 5cm calculated under the keel when crossing the bar?

Do you (a) comply - they're the skipper and that's that (b) attempt to argue them out of it or (c) refuse to comply?

Of course these are extreme cases, I grant you. Would it be different if safety wasn't an issue, though? If you and three other crew members wanted to call in at Workington and the skipper insisted for personal reasons on Maryport?

Would it make a difference if you were the owner?

Even if it is not obvious from the initial circumstances. For example that one person is clearly 'in charge'. There will always be a skipper.

I don't doubt that having a skipper is one way of doing it, nor that it can work well. I'm not convinced, yet, that it's the only way. For example, you might have an inexperienced owner and an experienced friend showing him how to sail the boat. Who decides whether to anchor, moor or pay for a marina berth for the night?

If you doubt this, just watch what happens if you come across the Police, Harbour Master, Customs (eBorders) etc. Their first question will either be who is the skipper, or who is in charge, ie the de-facto skipper,? That person is then held fully responsible for EVERYTHING.

That has not been my experience - I have never, ever been asked who the skipper is. I've been asked if I'm the owner, though.

As for the definition of 'skipper'. There is none as far as I know. It is the uk term for the person in charge of a leisure or pleasure boat not used commercially.

Which is fine, but if there isn't anyone in charge there isn't a skipper.

Assuming you have a partner - who is "in charge" of your house? Who is "in charge" of your car when you do long trips together?

Please don't get me wrong. If people want to designate a skipper and do what s/he says then that's no skin off my nose. I prefer to do my sailing in a more consultative way, but that's just what suits me. Plus I would collapse with the giggles if anyone ever called me, or referred to me as, "skipper".

 

[Ubergeekian]

I suppose I have been round the block a few times regarding the chain of command over the years and take it for granted.

Does a pleasure yacht require a chain of command? Or rather, does it require a fixed chain of command? On my boat I do what the helmsman says when s/he shouts "ready about".

 

[PeterGibbs]

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?

As in all cases where someone has suffered whilst "in your hands" it's up to them to show negligence/fault in a damages claim. The loss itself is not proof of the skipper's guilt/culpability.

It's no different to being the driver of a car where a passenger suffers loss/injury.

In your own defence it helps a lot to be able to demonstrate your attitude to caring for those entrusting themselves to your care. Having lifevests / car belts is of the essence in this regard. But whilst this equipment helps reduce the loss in many cases, its use / presence is not definitive in your defence and loss can still take place. EG. crew can still wander about the decks and put themselves at risk of falling overboard. Lashing them to the bulkhead is not yet an EU directive!

Elimination of all risk in/on any transportation vehicle is clearly not possible. Airlines have rules for buckling up, showing regard for safety, but this cannot guarantee total freedom from risk.

As sailors, it seems to me our best approach is to demonstrate care for safety on every new boarding occasion, have the equipment to hand, and demonstrate its use. Airlines can call the police and throw you off the plane if you do not follow buckling and other safety procedures, and technically we can order passengers/crew off who do not co-operate. Fortunately this has not yet come to pass!! At least not in non-commercial transportation, such as we are.

PWG

 

[nonitoo]

Does a pleasure yacht require a chain of command? Or rather, does it require a fixed chain of command? On my boat I do what the helmsman says when s/he shouts "ready about".

Exactly !! As you say "on your boat" (you are skipper and have delegated the helming to another) when they say "ready about" you have accepted that they are behaving in an appropriate manner and so obey them.

What ever you say and however democratic you think you are, in the end you are still in charge.

I would suggest, as it is your boat, that if you had not approved of the call by the helmsman, you would have countermanded their order.

Tom

 

[nonitoo]

I prefer to do my sailing in a more consultative way, but that's just what suits me. Plus I would collapse with the giggles if anyone ever called me, or referred to me as, "skipper".

In the situation, on your boat, where the helmsman is getting too close to a dangerous hazard but insists that he will manage to get round it and you disagree, at what point do you insist that he alter course ?

Or do you consult all the way to the accident ?

(Just being deliberately obtuse, you understand).

Tom

 

[Ubergeekian]

Exactly !! As you say "on your boat" (you are skipper and have delegated the helming to another) when they say "ready about" you have accepted that they are behaving in an appropriate manner and so obey them.

I am not the skipper. I am the owner. I don't do skipper!

 

[Ubergeekian]

In the situation, on your boat, where the helmsman is getting too close to a dangerous hazard but insists that he will manage to get round it and you disagree, at what point do you insist that he alter course ?

When I think he is endangering my safety, exactly the same as for any other helmsman on any other boat.

If you are on someone else's boat, where the skipper is getting too close to a dangerous hazard but insists that he will manage to get round it and you disagree, at what point do you insist that he alter course ?

Or do you defer to his authority all the way to the accident?

 

[KenMcCulloch]

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?

This was recently the subject of a court case in California. The jury found that the person on the helm was not responsible for events in the same way sa the person behind the wheel of what I think they call an 'automobile'. The responsible person (let's call them the skipper) could be in the cabin studying charts and still be in overall control of the vessel. I have often been in overall control while fast asleep, having delegated the watch.

 

[nickd]

The skipper or captain has the responsibility for the vessel and crew. That responsibility covers all areas; safety, supplies etc.
To take on this reponsibility (the buck ultimately stops with the skipper) it would be a good idea to be "in charge" of the vessel. On smaller recreational yachts (not coded) it would be difficult for the owner to not be the skipper as a lot of safety items and supplies would be his responsibility.
When I sail as owner I assume the responsibility of skipper but we often have an "acting skipper" who to all intents and purposes is assuming the role but ultimately I have the final say (this would only be used in an emergency).
When I sail with friends on a charter, then one person has to take responsibilty as skipper within the terms of the charter, again we would normally take it turns to assume the skipper duties on a day to day basis, but the person whose name is on the charter as skipper ultimately has the last say.
IMO It is important that all on board are aware of this hierarchy to avoid an argument when you least have time to have one ie when its all going pear- shaped.
To answer the original question the skipper is ultimately responsible. To this end I would always give a safety briefing especially to any new crew before we set sail, within which would be the comment Life Jackets are on your bunk, if you wish to wear it feel free, if I tell you wear it you must, ditto life lines. If a crew refused to wear a life jacket after being requested, I think there is little you can do but make an entry in the log, try and ensure you have a witness, and set them off at the next port of call never to be seen again.

 

[Ubergeekian]

This was recently the subject of a court case in California. The jury found that the person on the helm was not responsible for events in the same way sa the person behind the wheel of what I think they call an 'automobile'. The responsible person (let's call them the skipper) could be in the cabin studying charts and still be in overall control of the vessel.

That could certainly be th ecase.

The skipper or captain has the responsibility for the vessel and crew. That responsibility covers all areas; safety, supplies etc.
To take on this reponsibility (the buck ultimately stops with the skipper) it would be a good idea to be "in charge" of the vessel.

That's a circular argument, though, isn't it. The skipper is ultimately liable, and the person who's ultimately liable is the skipper. All fine up to a point if you have a skipper, but doesn't mean that you actually need one, or that you need to arrange things hierarchically.

 

[nickd]

That could certainly be th ecase.



That's a circular argument, though, isn't it. The skipper is ultimately liable, and the person who's ultimately liable is the skipper. All fine up to a point if you have a skipper, but doesn't mean that you actually need one, or that you need to arrange things hierarchically.

The point being that if you take on the responsibility then you are the skipper whatever you want to call yourself (capatain, owner whatever). And that if you are the owner of a non coded yacht then you are responsible for the safety equipment on board, and therefor you are the skipper as no one else, whatever you call them can take that responsibility nor would want to take it anyway. If you borrow or charter a boat then one person on board will be the skipper in the eyes of the owner or charter company and this person will have to take responsibility as skipper.

 

[alant]

Just two questions, then.

• Is it necessary to have a skipper?
• If there is a skipper, can anyone else be responsible for an accident?

Are you suggesting boats are run by committee?

Even when the crew of Bounty got rid of their Captain/officers, they still had a 'skipper/captain' in charge of things.

As previously stated, the authorities in the UK (MCA etc) and any at foreign ports, expect that there will be an 'owner' and/or skipper/captain responsible for the boat & crew.

This applies to leisure boats & any run on commercial basis.
If you think otherwise & the **** hits the fan, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility, simply because it was a friends' jolly with 'no-one' in charge.