otnmbrd wrote:
Capt. NealŪ wrote:
The way I read the Rules is both vessels are required by the
Rules to pass port to port. A reasonable judge could go by
that fact alone and conclude both vessels violated the Rules equally
and had they passed in accordance with the Rules
a collision would not have happened.
Problem is, if this is an "inland" situation, the rule states "unless
otherwise agreed"
This was inland. And anyone that monitors 13 in NY harbor knows that
"departures" are commonplace.
What bothers me more about this situation is a Court
of Law ends up deciding fault which is proper but what
is NOT proper in my mind is for a court to make a decision
that sets precedent which might be applied to other situations
and the Rules end up getting morphed into something unintended.
If that court is some State or Federal court, unfamiliar with the
MEANING of the rules, I'd agree. However, if the court is a Maritime
court, that becomes another matter.
Actually, I've read that the circuit courts that handle some appeals do
a rather credible job.
I do not think the writers and signers of the Colregs intended
the Colregs to be a toy of the lawyers.
Sorry to say, lawyers are here to stay. Many of the changes to the
rules, have come about because lawyers were able to argue the wording of
the rules (hence, no longer "right of way"). This is not all that bad as
it's helped clarify many areas. However, one must never lose sight of
the fact that the "Rules of the Road" tend to rely more on the "spirit"
of the law, than they do on the "letter of the law" ..... i.e. Rule 2
.....you are responsible for what you do, what you don't do, and what
you should or should not have done.
Frankly the rules a very terse and obviously written to give the courts
the widest latitude in interpretation. It was intended that the courts
would have an active roll in determining the law.
|