Dan wrote:
wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan"


The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.


In that case there must be some prior cases.

I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence.

There have been numerous cases that involved the issue of a proper
lookout. Many court decisions have set precedents, and many textbooks
have written on it.

However, the fundamental concept they focus on the question of whether a
better lookout could have prevented a particular incident. For
instance, and early ruling says that a proper lookout is so designated,
and this must be his primary duty. However, a later decision allowed
that a lookout could also sound a fog horn. However, a lookout can't
also be a navigator.

But if you apply decisions based on large ships, you end up requiring an
impossibly large crew for a small boat. The courts don't require the
same level of "lookout" on a small boat. Further, failure to have a
proper lookout (or failure to comply with any rule) is not penalized
unless it contributes to an accident.

However, if you're looking for a court decision relevant to this
situation, the ruling that I posted (again below) involves David Scully,
who was sailing the single hand racing boat Coyote (an Open 60?), which
he had chartered from the widow of Mike Plant. (Actually, I don't think
they were married before Mike disappeared when the keel fell off in the
mid-Atlantic). Scully was sleeping during a qualifying run from the
Azores to Newport when Coyote hit a fishing boat off Nova Scotia. Its
interesting reading - the original decision apparently cited the "vessel
moving should avoid vessel stationary" concept, but the appeal court
agreed with Scully that the fishing boat was not really "stationary"
according to the law, since it was not anchored. But the court held
that the lack of a lookout was the primary cause of the incident. The
fact that Coyote was not running its radar, lights, or radios didn't help.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf

One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout
is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must
follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty
for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In
inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not
having proper lights, etc.