Here is more feed for the Sea Lawyers:
Was the Supreme Court decision right or wrong??::
’ (which might require the ship to do something different by requiring it to maintain its course and speed)’
You are required to take positive action; ‘maintaining’ is not positive action.
We spend a lot of time in narrow channels and fairways, everyone else is a pain in the arse.
Well the Lords and Ladies have spoketh…
The crossing rule only becomes an issue here when the case goes to court after the collision and even then its relevance is only wrt a legal justification for the 80/20 decision.
Before the collision; while the ships maneuvered, the issue of whether Rule 2 or the crossing rule applies becomes about as relevant as the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, at least as far as the mariners are concerned.
This is the part of the article that I don’t understand:
The decision, which overturns the findings of the Admiralty judge and a Court of Appeal experienced in admiralty matters, will be of considerable interest to the maritime community and will have significant ramifications for vessels entering and exiting narrow channels and the rules to be observed at different points of a vessel’s manoeuvre.
It seems like what is said is that because of this ruling ships will exit and enter narrow channels differently?
Have to call a lawyer first?