Steering & Sailing Rules in Harbour

Guys, let’s look for a minute at the OP, we’re talking about a personal (sail?) boat in a marina. We’re not talking commercial vessels. It’s not going to be manned at all times, so expecting a 24/7 mooring watch is neither reasonable or appropriate.

1 Like

Yes, but that’s the question, how do you square the fact that COLREGs rule 5 says: “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout” with the fact that the boats at the marina don’t have lookouts.

The answer is that the term lookout refers to a concept, not an actual person so "lookout’ means “no lookout” and “at all times” means depending upon circumstances so “at all times” can mean never.

I agree with you in the case of a boat in a marina. But I would not bet my shirt in the case of a fully manned vessel. Your lawyer could see an opening to stick his feet into. Lookout, special lookout, watch, alertness have all the same meaning to me. Better keep an eye on it than be sorry!

Colregs do not apply to a vessel secured to a berth. You can wish they do all you want, but they don’t. If you want to prove your point than site a case where they did apply, and good luck with that. One thing you will notice about the Rules of the Road is that they apply to all vessels. You can’t say “oh it applies to ships that are manned but not sailboats in a marina”.
What about a vessel in lay up? Are there provisions for that in your view?

Be careful not to “read into” the specific wording of one Rule. As was explained earlier in this thread, the Rules work together.

2 Likes

What about the case of a vessel tied up to a dock that can barely accommodate 2 vessels? Another vessel is approaching at a mere beam off. Would it then be a good idea to keep a sharp lookout? The incoming vessel or tugs could make contact, she could contact with your own lines, you might have to let go some of yours to give room, your vessel could surge, your lines could get loose or some snaps, what about the case of an oil tanker connected to loading arms, the gangway could fall between the berth and the quay, someone could get hurt or fall in the water, etc.

If you don’t maintained a proper lookout, a proper watch, a state of alertness or whatever you call it, if something goes wrong while you sit in your cabin smoking a pipe not giving a shit, I can assure you that you could land into deep trouble. Every single time I had to deal with such a situation, there was always a crew standing by on the moored vessel in case of need or as witness or else and ready to report. I really wonder why… if there was no consequences whatsoever related to maintaining a proper lookout. I understand that if you never ever saw that, it could be surprising.

Thence, every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out so to make (1.) a full appraisal of the situation and (2.) of the risk of collision.

They wouldn’t be required to have a look out, and even if they were the vessel that wakes them is responsible for any damage or injuries caused by their wake, or by collision. It’s pretty common sense. I don’t what the problem is here.

I have never heard of anyone keeping a navigation lookout while tied to a pier, fully manned or otherwise. Tending lines, working cargo, gangway watch, yes. A navigation watch, no way. If not for the simple fact that you aren’t navigating, you’re made fast to the pier. You’re really trying to cherry pick the rules here to make your case.

And it’s an allision, not a collision if a vessel hits a stationary object. That much is not open for debate. There is nothing you could possibly do in time to maneuver away from a vessel if you are tied up, finished with engines, and working cargo. I’m assuming you have little to no experience on commercial vessels, or merely a troll.

Legal trouble, claims of injury and so forth while moored in port comes in the form of claims of negligence, failure to protect against known hazards and the like.

Do you have an example of a properly moored vessel being found at fault in a COLREGs case?

It was along the lines of…Are you fucking kidding me? Yes, I (and the captain) knew the correct term should have been “allision” but that is not the term used by the USCG investigator.

There must be a clear legal answer to this question. Now I’m more confused than when I started.

Most legal answers begin with “it depends . . .” and have many shades of gray.

Especially when you consider that there is proportionate fault in maritime law, so litigated cases are not win/lose, all or nothing. (US v. Reliable Transfer Co., etc.)

Even if no court has ever held a ship that is secured to the dock liable for an allision, one never knows what some crazy judge might do, or what entirely new legal duty a very smart judge might create. (See The T. J. Hooper).

There is something about COLREGs discussions that brings out the pedantic tendencies in people. Maneuvering to avoid collisions is discussed as if they are moves on a chess board. One such discussion is taking place on this forum now.

The real world is not like a chess board and maneuvering vessels is not like moving chess pieces.

It’s worthwhile reading previous cases, Farwell’s is a good source.

As to the original question I think the answer in Llana & Wisneskey is a good one, here is Rule 5 – Lookout

The other good guide is Rule 2, what is: “any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen” ? Do moored ships maintain lookouts? The answer is no.

As far as court cases, I didn’t do an exhaustive search but according to the internet about half of cases decided 0/100, with no fault to one ship were cases where one ship struck another which was moored.

See also the dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Maddin

Sometimes “ordinary practice” isn’t enough, see The TJ Hooper cited by tugsailor above:
Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged… there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission

2 Likes

Yes, as you know rule 2 doesn’t actually endorse “ordinary practice” but instead warns against its neglect. How things are done aboard ship can be a helpful guide.

Is this the case about VHFs?

I see it is:

l. An adequate receiving set suitable for a coastwise tug can now be got at small cost and is reasonably reliable if kept up; obviously it is a source of great protection to their tows. Twice every day they can receive these predictions

I got bogged down with the soundings at first.

It’s a pre-WWII case, so it would have been AM radio.

The T.J. Hooper is the seminal case for the concept that: just because no regulation requires it, and it’s not yet common practice, you may still be liable for failing to have it or do it. The T.J.Hooper is still good law.

The T.J. Hooper also has shoreside application. I cannot think of the name of the case, but the T.J. Hooper was applied in a pre-building code case holding that it was negligent not to use safety glass in a household shower door. At the time, it was the common practice to use ordinary glass and no regulation required anything more.

How many times have we heard a penny-pinching vessel owner say “it’s not USCG required”.

1 Like

I have a good book recommendation for you: Learned Hand, The Man and the Judge, by Gerrold Gunther.

Learned Hand decided the T. J. Hooper and many other important maritime cases. If it were not for the fact that he was a Republican in the Franklin Roosevelt era, he would have made it to the Supreme Court.

1 Like

The TJ Hooper has been cited numerous times. The case I learned in first year law school Torts course was Helling v. Carey which involved whether it was negligent not to screen for glaucoma.

1 Like