Steering & Sailing Rules in Harbour

Rule 1:

INTERNATIONAL INLAND
(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. (a) These Rules apply to all vessels upon the inland waters of the United States, and to vessels of the United States on the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes to the extent that there is no conflict with Canadian law.

There is no mention of the status of the vessel.

Court cases use the term “properly moored”.

Here is a case where the moored vessel was found 70% at fault

Vessel Moored in Narrow Waterway Found 70 Percent At Fault When Struck by a Passing Vessel

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals approved a 70 percent at fault finding against a dredge that was moored in a narrow channel of the Intercoastal Waterway when it was struck by a passing vessel. Usually a moored vessel would not be found negligent at all in such an “allision.” If both vessels were moving, it would have been called a “collision.”

The dredge was moored on the bank of a narrow channel in violation of the Island Navigation Rule 9, which prohibits such mooring. Furthermore, violation of an Inland rule triggered another rule that the U.S. Supreme Court laid down in The Pennsylvania in 1873 that shifted the burden of proving causation to the party in violation of a statutory rule.

2 Likes

That case presented an interesting interaction of “The Pennsylvania Rule” with “The Oregon Rule.” Both create presumptions of fault.

The Pennsylvania Rule applies when a vessel is found to be in violation of the Rules, and the vessel found in violation must not only prove the violation was not the cause of the accident, but that it could not have been. The Oregon Rule presumes fault upon a vessel alluding with a stationary object, unless the allision was the fault of the stationary object. The Court did not explain how they considered these two possibly conflicting presumptions, but it appears the vessel that hit the moored vessel met its burden under the Oregon Rule by the presumption of fault established by the Pennsylvania Rule after the moored vessel was found in violation of Rule 9 (for mooring in a narrow channel).

This is probably a very unique fact scenario and not likely to occur with anything approaching regularity.

This case gives a more detailed discussion of the interaction of these two rules.

1 Like

You’re the skipper of a sailboat all fast in a marina. You have the visit of a friend, his wife and their two children of 2 and 4 years old respectively. That’s their very first experience on board a sailboat and they will spend the night onboard. Your guests seem to take good care of the children. They even wear life jackets in the cockpit. Fine. The next morning, the parents realize that the 4 years old is missing! We know how the story started but we don’t know how it’s going to finish. As the skipper, you might have the displeasure to answer the question;

A proper look-out is a regulatory measure that must be maintained;
a) at anchor,
b) at berth,
c) when under way,
d) all these answers.

Good luck !

I remember this. It was the plot on an episode of Murder She Wrote.

1 Like

Hypotheticals aside, it is unsafe to wear a PFD inside a vessel. That said, your friend and his wife are bad parents for not watching their children more carefully.
Reasonable people would not stand a watch overnight on a vessel that is secured to most likely a floating dock that rises and falls with the tide in a sheltered marina. As you are not loading or discharging cargo, there is an extremely low chance of any lines parting. Yes, you are not without risk, but this scenario might best be played out on the cruisers forum or some other yacht forum with men wearing scrambled eggs on their hats. I’m don’t think there are many toddlers overnighting on commercial vessels that are not in the passenger trade.

COLREGS doesn’t apply in this case but there might still be civil liability.

There’s going to be a plot twist. Turns out the skipper had an affair with his friend’s wife four years ago, the 4 year old is the skipper’s child and is safe with the skipper’s current girl friend.

The skipper is going to leave the 2 year old and the boat to his friend and take the wife and 4 year old, plan is the three of them to live with the skipper’s current girl friend.

3 Likes

Let’s take it from here shall we. Ultra large container ship moored to the dock port side to. Deck officer and one deck hand at bay 01/03 port side. Other deck hand at gangway (homeland security) . Master and Chief Mate in their resective offices. What fool thinks that someone is keeping a collision lookout! And is in a position to tak action? May be the USCG is wondering where the cane fenders are?
In a collision between two ships in Swanson Dock, Melbourne the underway vessel was carrying out a sternboard to her berth when she suffered an engine failure. The slow speed diesel had already been manoeuvred 5 times and failed to start ahead due to a blocked line to an oil pressure sensor. The master could no let go the anchors immediately because he could not sight the forward tug. He was censured because he did not have a contingency plan for engine failure. There was no manufacturers maintenance procedure for testing the line only the sensor.
The master of the vessel already alongside was only a material witness at the investigation which was as it should be.

3 Likes

And possibly a criminal investigation.:frowning_face:

Yes, I was thinking civilian as apposed to admiralty and it wasn’t the correct word usage.

That’s ridiculous.

Seems to me the engineering department might be a more appropriate place to look to shoulder a major portion of the culpability if such is found. Engineers are in charge of the power plant not the master. The master’s culpability might come into play if he knowingly let the ER dept ignore preventive maintenance which caused the failure.

Believe me I know it’s ridiculous. At the time I thought it’s a bit like asking a pilot “your wings have fallen off what is your contingency plane”.
The ship had of course completed an astern trial before manoeuvring in Port Philip Bay with the Pilot as witness.

I forgot to mention that this particular failure had never previously occurred on this type of main engine.

With all due respect, isn’t that why you have a mate and other personnel on the bow. They should have been able to communicate where the fwd tug was and drop the anchor(s). That is your contingency plan for engine failure.

I don’t know if the pilot was also asking the forward tug if he was clear to allow the anchors to be used . It is also possible that the tug was not visible to the second or third mate without him shifting to a view point to confirm the tugs position and then instruct the mooring crew to let go an anchor. I’m just bloody glad it wasn’t me trying to orchestrate the right sequence of events with a third world crew with English as a second language and within the confines of Swanson Dock. The collision caused only minor damage from memory and from the time of engine failure to collision was probably under three minutes.
" Ships name bridge to for’d where is the for’d tug?
"Let go the for’d tug…??.
And again etc. standby for a cluster…