New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: In irons
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

In irons
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: In irons
    Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 10:45pm
Originally posted by fudheid

How does the rrs DSQ ing two boats help to apportion blame?

If it comes to an insurance claim or litigation, it demonstrates that no boat can claim to be blameless, hence apportionment should be the expected outcome.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 10:57pm
If the insurance companies use colregs, I would have thought they would have expected a port tack boat to keep better lookout in a busy piece of water. Not looking where you are going, especially when you don't have right of way, is not a good excuse under colregs!
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 15 at 11:19pm
Originally posted by fudheid

it didn't matter what the protest committee found, in terms of pay out for damage.

It might matter a bit more if it was a close hook-up overlap, or a mark-room incident, where the COLREGS obligations are very different from the RRS ones.

In this particular case the same fault lies against each boat, whether applying COLREGS or RRS.
  1. Port did not keep clear of Starboard
  2. Starboard did not avoid contact where reasonably possible or, when she found herself so close that collision could not be avoided by the action of Port alone, she did not take action to avoid collision. 
Both boats were at fault so apportionment was going to be the appropriate way of dealing with damages.

Apportionment is not something that arises from COLREGS rather than RRS.  Neither RRS NOR COLREGS deal with liability for damages.  That is dealt with by other international maritime conventions and statute and common law.

Originally posted by fudheid

In rrrs terms we as port boat did our turns and so exonerated ourselves (is that bit right? do your turns and get a result, until protest committee hearing?)
Not exactly right in RRS terms.

Taking a turns or scoring penalty under rule 44 does NOT 'exonerate' a boat for breaking a rule.

All it means is that, being an 'applicable penalty', if a protest hearing concludes that the boat broke a rule, she shall not be further penalised, as provided by rule 64.1( b ).  She still broke the rule.

A boat can only be exonerated for breaking a rule if
  1. in accordance with rule 64.1( a ), she was compelled to break the rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule;  or
  2. with respect to rule 14 Avoiding Contact, if she was a right of way boat or a boat entitled to room or mark-room and the contact does not cause damage or injury, in accordance with rule 14( b ).
Originally posted by fudheid

we took avoiding action - although far too late as we did not see the starboard yacht, until she was on top of us.
whether you call it RRS 14 or colreg.

Originally posted by fudheid

 When insurance companies are arguing liabilities they will pick whatever terms suit them.
The rules , protests and insurance claims are not as linked as you think. Like any insurance policy if they can wiggle they will wiggle.

Quite possibly.

Although for a GBP 2,000 boating accident the deciding factor will probably be what ever was in the tiny brain of the overworked, underpaid, pimply faced 20 year old insurance clerk that was handling the claim.

For a 2,000 quid claim you're not going to get the finest legal minds in the industry.
Originally posted by fudheid

Be clear on this.
why you all think i would be funny with an actual incident that caused a few thousand pounds worth of damage i do not know, i was trying to pass on the knowledge we gained from a racing incident. take that knowledge or stick your heads in the sand about what you think you are covered for.
And no i was not the helmsman, we were shorthanded so had our heads in the boat at a major manouvere - it is no excuse; but just enough to lessen our liability.
Regardless of what the insurance company told you, the RRS were applicable.

As it happened, applying the COLREGS instead of the RRS made no difference.

As for insurance, you are covered for what you are covered for:  read your policy and think about engaging a reputable and experienced broker.
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 15 at 7:55am
Brass - precisely.  That's the nail in the coffin for me as far as Towergate are concerned.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy