Steering & Sailing Rules in Harbour

Even if we were maintaining a proper lookout, the incident happened so quickly that we had no time to sound the Warning Signal! :smirk:

Have your lawyer call my lawyer.

Probably the best answer if the captain of the vessel that hit was asking but I wouldn’t use that response with an CG investigator asking the question.

What the rules say doesn’t answer the question. What they mean, ie how a consensus of Courts of appropriate jurisdiction have applied them, does. Care to offer anything on what means would be appropriate for a docked vessel? And, if a vessel underway hits a vessel that is moored to a dock, it’s not a collision.

Do you have any cites showing a vessel was found at fault fot maintaining a proper lookout while made fast to a dock? (Perhaps one overruling The Oregon…)


After an incident there is a requirement to answer question related to safety of life and property, for example after being struck the question “are any tanks damaged” is legit, but it’s considered unwise to answer investigatory type questions in the immediate aftermath.

If you answer questions without having full knowledge you might find yourself having to explaining your answers later in a more formal setting.

This is not just theory in my case, I once sent a quick email to the company to the query “what happened”. I later spend an hour or two in the hot seat explaining every line.

Don’t tell anyone anything they don’t need to know. Investigators are trying to take advantage or your being out of sorts.


I agree wholeheartedly that it’s unwise to respond with anything other than “no comment” to an individual involved in a mutual accident or their insurance investigator or an office drone asking questions. Surely you’re not advising pleading the 5th to a CG investigator (which was the case in point)?

Well, eleven people, including the Master, did just that in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon loss.


Please notice the emphasis on "the case in point" which refers to a CG investigator asking the master of a vessel moored to a dock what he did to avoid a collision. As jdcavo pointed out, there was no collision. The event was an allision.

1 Like

No. The USCG investigator should be referred to your attorney. Your first call should be to MOPs to get that attorney.

I was on a ship years ago which was “rear ended” while moored at a berth when a ship undocking behind us lost the plant in a strong river current. My recollection is it was one of the rare insurance claims where we were completely without fault.

1 Like

Even if the expression Allision exists, it is still recognize that a Collision is the structural impact between two ships or one ship and a floating or a still object. (Answer to the deleted post!)

Have you ever dock or just assisting in a docking maneuver on the bridge of a 4,000+ TEU, between two other vessels of the same nature and with a clearance of less than 50 foot forward and aft. Question; What did you observe on the bridge wing, the bow and the stern of the two other vessels and why?

From my point of view, I consider that a «proper lookout» in port as being a gangway watch, a mooring watch, an alarm watch, a fire watch, a close by docking vessel watch, and so on. I would not like to be in the shoes of a master where a man fell in the water along with the gangway while there was no proper lookout in the area. I am sure you can find yourself an accident report of that nature and the consequences of such a neglect.

Sorry, missed that.



1 Like


Based on your disjointed logic, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.


I’m not a lawyer but if someone was injured at the gangway because of a passing ship I doubt a competent lawyer would use COLREGs to make his case. Seems like a case of a man with hammer thinking everything is a nail. A lawyer is going to have more tools in his toolbox than a mariner limited to COLREGs.


Sure, make wild unsubstantiated statements and expect others to do the research. WTF? Over.

For your own allusion Lee_Shore, IMO does not even use the term collision nor allision. The expression used is a «marine casualty» or a «marine incident». I did not use these terms to avoid you to get confused.


2.9 A marine casualty means an event, or a sequence of events, that has resulted in any of the following which has occurred directly in connection with the operations of a ship:

.1 the death of, or serious injury to, a person;
.2 the loss of a person from a ship;
.3 the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a ship;
.4 material damage to a ship;
.5 the stranding or disabling of a ship, or the involvement of a ship in a collision;
.6 material damage to marine infrastructure external to a ship, that could seriously endanger the safety of the ship, another ship or an individual; or
.7 severe damage to the environment, or the potential for severe damage to the environment, brought about by the damage of a ship or ships.

2.10 A marine incident means an event, or sequence of events, other than a marine casualty, which has occurred directly in connection with the operations of a ship that endangered, or, if not corrected, would endanger the safety of the ship, its occupants or any other person or the environment.

Is there a point to this cut and paste rubbish? Are you DSD risen from the dead?

By the way, get a dictionary:

What about Damage Caused by Excessive Speed against Safe Speed?

During recent years there has been a marked increase in damage to wharves, boat-houses, small boats, moored ships, and erosion of the shoreline caused by draw-off and wave disturbance created by the passage of ships and boats.

1.2 Additionally, there is a risk of causing serious bodily harm to persons in, on or near the shore. Children are particularly vulnerable to this hazard.

1.3 The amount of draw-off and the size and intensity of the waves at any given speed varies with the hull form and draft of each vessel. Other factors include the vessel’s proximity to the shore and the configuration of the channel.

1.4 High water levels will increase and extend the damaging effects of a vessel’s passage, and must be taken into account.

1.5 Masters, pilots, operators and owners of vessels may be subject to court action for damages sustained by injured parties as a result of damage or injury caused by the passage of their vessels.

1.6 Regulations designed to control this type of damage would require speed limits to be set sufficiently low to prevent damage by any type of vessel. This might impose unrealistic speed restrictions on some vessels, thereby making navigation unsafe by reducing their ability to maintain steerageway, or cause undue economic and recreational restraints.

1.7 Regulatory control of vessels’ speed can be avoided if each person in charge of navigating a vessel, who best knows its characteristics, exercises restraint and reduces speed as necessary. Due consideration must be given to all the factors that may contribute to damage.

Are you American ?

Would you mind explaining the significance of your question to this discussion other than bolstering the fact that you have issues with simple concepts and the subject of this thread?
Never mind, vaya con Dios…