COLREGS and Maritime Law

I got a boat safety magazine or flyer from Boat U.S. called Seaworthy which has a short discussion of the COLREGS and a couple of cases. The first case was a large boat traveling 20 knots which struck and destroyed a smaller boat which was drift fishing killing 2 of the three people on the smaller boat. The article goes on to cite various COLREG issues involved. A court battle took place and the court assigned 60% of the blame to the larger boat and 40% of the blame to the smaller boat.

No issues here with the COLREGS. What I don't quite understand is what the 60%/40% means. Does it mean because the larger boat was mostly to blame that it is responsible for all the costs and liable for wrongful death or does it mean the larger boat only has to pay 60% of the total damages and 60% of any wrongful death awards?

Should probably ask a lawyer but don't have enough boat bucks for their hourly rate!

I'm likely wrong, and if so would be glad to be corrected by more knowledgeable members, but the Col Regs in accident investigations are mainly to assign blame. The incident is looked at as a whole and blame is assigned but like so many other aspects of life boat accidents are typically a combination of errors by all parties. Seldom if ever is one party solely to blame.

Probably doing a poor job of expressing myself but took a swing at it.

Without knowing what type of "court battle" one would assume it was a civil action of sorts involving one or both parties seeking damage compensation. If 60/40 was assigned by the the court then yes, that would be their individual responsibilities on claims. Probably appealed though.

The court almost always assigns partial blame to both parties in the case of a collision. Maintaining a proper lookout is often cited for both vessels.

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

Click to expand...

Often, even boats that are not underway which are run over through no fault of their own are assigned 10% of the blame.

Too bad car wrecks aren't scored the same way.

I understand adjudication of the percent of blame but how does that translate to resolving the monetary claims.

For example if the larger boat with 60% of blame had $50K of damages and the smaller destroyed boat with 40% of blame was valued at $30K, does that mean the smaller boat is responsible for $20K of the damages to the larger boat and $12K for the damages to his own boat?

Or is the larger boat responsible for for all $80K of the damages because he was assigned the majority of the blame?

Donsan said:

For example if the larger boat with 60% of blame had $50K of damages and the smaller destroyed boat with 40% of blame was valued at $30K, does that mean the smaller boat is responsible for $20K of the damages to the larger boat and $12K for the damages to his own boat?

Click to expand...

Typically all of the damages are added up then divided according to the percentage of blame (but not always, it's up to the court). In your example, the total damages of $80k may be divided such that the larger boat paid $48k and the smaller boat paid $32k. Some cases have used really old Admiralty law that splits the costs 50/50 despite the blame.

two people were killed and you guys are debating 80K in damages??????????

Boydski said:

Typically all of the damages are added up then divided according to the percentage of blame (but not always, it's up to the court). In your example, the total damages of $80k may be divided such that the larger boat paid $48k and the smaller boat paid $32k. Some cases have used really old Admiralty law that splits the costs 50/50 despite the blame.

Click to expand...

I think I got it now. I suspected it was that way. What was bothering me is potentially, the smaller boat could have ended up with a huge liability if say the larger more expensive boat had also sank.

Any idea how the loss of life is handled? Is that handled under admiralty law?

bayview said:

two people were killed and you guys are debating 80K in damages??????????

Click to expand...

Nope. I would like to know how that is handled also.

But really, no debate. Just trying to understand the implications of what I read.

Others are correct that the apportionment of blame is to apportion damages. Some states do the same in all tort liability cases. As to the question of who pays, the apportionment is based on who filed the suit and is seeking damages. So, here, I assume that the larger boat defendant pays 60% of whatever damages were sought by the smaller boat plaintiffs. The larger boat wouldn't get any damages unless they had a counter suit, but that would be litigated seperately. I imagine that if no one died on the larger boat, there was no suit against the smaller boat. These numbers are likely all related to the death and injuries, not property damage that would have likley been handled by the insurance companies between themselves.

The article did not get into the specifics of the case. It could and may well be a civil suit for loss of life from a third party. Claim against both boat owners. Often you will find the shot-gun approach to these type suits.
dan

Now I am seeing the whole enchilada. Thanks for the explanation on this.

Hi All,

Just my thoughts and happy to be wrong. Firstly whenever anyone dies in an accident [ I hate calling them that ] someone must be held accountable.

My thoughts on the Colregs which I am relearning at the moment, the smaller boat apparently was not at anchor and therefo0re was not required to carry an anchor light at the masthead but as such it may then have to be considered to be underway and should have shown nav light appropiate for its`size.

Professional fishing boats have a series of light which they must display while working but not so with pleasure or smaller craft.

There may be a loophole in the regs which do not at first appear to cover a small private boat drift fishing.!!!

he courts will try to use the wisdom of Soloman to share the blame as equitibaly as possible. In this case I suspect that the deaths of the two fishermen would have complicated this matter greatly and taken much searching of the rules to find the right solution.

Bottom line for all of us, be careful out on the water, it is an unforgiving enviornment.

David.

It depends on the state in which the case was brought to the courts. Some states only require 51% of blame for them to liable and other states have the percentage se higher. So it all depends on what state.

Apophyge said:

Too bad car wrecks aren't scored the same way.

Click to expand...

Actually that happens quite frequently in auto crash Civil Litigation cases, at least here in Florida. Really depends on the facts of the crash...and the prowess of the attorney's, insurance adjusters, and their experts. One of my reconstructionist is involved in these sort of cases regularly.

ulysses said:

The article did not get into the specifics of the case. It could and may well be a civil suit for loss of life from a third party. Claim against both boat owners. Often you will find the shot-gun approach to these type suits.
dan

Click to expand...

We handled a loss of life case a few years back where one young person was killed and another severely injured. Without getting into the details of the case, they were doing something ignorant, in front of a vessel much larger than them, and considerably less maneuverable.

The crash was investigated by FWC jointly with the USCG. The criminal side was handled by the State, while the civil litigation was held in Federal Court. Two separate animals, joined at the hip by a common cause.

DMartin said:

It depends on the state in which the case was brought to the courts. Some states only require 51% of blame for them to liable and other states have the percentage se higher. So it all depends on what state.

Click to expand...

True unless the case was held in Federal Court.
Did the article mention?

Someone mentioned that they hate to use the word "accident" in these cases, but that's usually what they are.

In Florida, in auto cases, we changed to the term "crash" years ago, rather than "accident." Unless the operator(s) were acting in a totally reckless and negligent, it's still an "accident", an unintentional act. If the operator is operating in a reckless manner, then it would likely also become a criminal investigation as well.

In the aforementioned case, had either party been "reckless" in their actions, manslaughter charges, the taking of a life through culpable negligence, could have been brought.

HTH?

OD

Boydski said:

The court almost always assigns partial blame to both parties in the case of a collision. Maintaining a proper lookout is often cited for both vessels.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is an extremely common thing with maritime cases, and is completely contrary to what we are used to from automobile experience.

With an accident on a public road, in the United States, it is usual for one party or the other to be assigned blame. One has "right of way" and the other is at fault for the accident. On the water there is no such thing as "right of way" (despite the fact that HUGE numbers of boaters use the term!). The operators of both boats have the responsibility to do whatever they must to avoid a collision.

That said, just because blame is assigned 60/40 does not necessarily mean that all expenses will be split 60/40. That often is the way it is done, but there are also times when one or the other party is charged for a larger (or smaller) percentage of the costs than their percentage of the blame. So, short answer to that part of the original question is, it depends.

Rule 14 (US inland)


(d) Notwithstanding Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate.


Navigation Rules Online

psneeld said:

Rule 14 (US inland)


(d) Notwithstanding Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate.


Navigation Rules Online

Click to expand...

Nuff said!

Denverd0n- We do actually see something like this in Florid civil cases. LE will usually assess "fault" or blame in an auto crash, although they may or may not be correct. The insurance adjusters will then attempt to assign some degree of liability to the other driver. It may not always be possible, but I've not seen it stop them from trying LOL.

Okay. My mistake. Inland rules. Not really familiar with those, as I live in Florida and have always/only boated in salt water. So you can find "right of way" in the rules if you look hard enough.

That rule applies only in the areas specified. We don't know where the crash happened. If it were in the ICW that rule does not apply.

I used to teach captains licensing.... and usually the USCG, company and convention would spout off "right of way" doesn't really apply in the Navrules. Except where specifically noted.


Well I also taught boating safety to complete newbies for a lot longer and decades of hands on training too.


The arguing of "right of way" whether an appropriate term or not is really just flypoop or fancy words to be argued academically. Just like going though an intersection where the other guy had the stop sign so you just go ahead and T-bone him....I don't think that flies either when witnesses said you could have easily stopped.


Sure all parties are responsible for being "reasonable" and following the rules....but absolutes never really apply all that much in real life. Much of the boating on the ICW has little in common with applying the Navrules to the letter as there's a bunch of "other factors" that always seem to be present.


So yes, there's little in the way of "right of way"...yet the basic concept still applies as much as a lot of other things....especially when tying to talk with most boaters due to their understanding of the Navrules.

psneeld said:

I used to teach captains licensing.... and usually the USCG, company and convention would spout off "right of way" doesn't really apply in the Navrules. Except where specifically noted.


Well I also taught boating safety to complete newbies for a lot longer and decades of hands on training too.


The arguing of "right of way" whether an appropriate term or not is really just flypoop or fancy words to be argued academically. Just like going though an intersection where the other guy had the stop sign so you just go ahead and T-bone him....I don't think that flies either when witnesses said you could have easily stopped.


Sure all parties are responsible for being "reasonable" and following the rules....but absolutes never really apply all that much in real life. Much of the boating on the ICW has little in common with applying the Navrules to the letter as there's a bunch of "other factors" that always seem to be present.


So yes, there's little in the way of "right of way"...yet the basic concept still applies as much as a lot of other things....especially when tying to talk with most boaters due to their understanding of the Navrules.

Click to expand...

In Driver's Training, we were shown a tombstone. It read, "I had the right of way."

The point is obvious, safe driving and safe boating depend on all to take precautions, to drive responsibly, to look out for others and to drive defensively. On the road, someone pulls out in front of me where they shouldn't, I slow or stop. On the water, the fact that I know the rules better than others might could, in fact, lead to me making a huge mistake if I didn't temper it. Just as driving a car, I assume every motorist coming out of a side street is going to pull out in front of me, when at the helm of a boat, I assume every boat I see may do the wrong thing. It's not just the more complicated regs, but it's basic rules of the road. How often has a boat just pulled across in front of you, forcing you to tak action to avoid an accident. Last time we were home on the ICW there was a boat that apparently thought they were in the UK and were supposed to stay on the left side of the road. We saw at least 6 other boats take measures to avoid them. A few months ago we saw a boat taking it's half out of the middle pretty much. However, they were on the radio apologizing in advance and making sure it was ok for them to maintain their course. Turns out they'd lost their steering and were using their twin throttles to control their boat and thrusters for correction. As they approached the marina everyone gave them way and prepared to help. We jumped in tenders and they threw us lines. We were barely needed as they did an excellent job docking to the applause of many.

The biggest mistake a captain can make is assuming every other operator out there won't make a mistake and will follow all the rules. Avoiding accidents is everyone's responsibility.

BandB said:

The biggest mistake a captain can make is assuming every other operator out there won't make a mistake and will follow all the rules. Avoiding accidents is everyone's responsibility.

Click to expand...

What he said!