Another case that would require comment from a "Maritime/Admiralty
Lawyer".
I think we all can show cases, where the various rescue organizations
have rescued the "individuals" and then let the vessel and cargo go it's
merry way, which could be perceived as not showing a concern for the
vessel/cargo (I, for one, have been involved in a few rescues, where our
only concern was the "individuals". Once they were secure we paid no
further heed to the vessel).
The possible sticking point here, may involve certainty that the
particular vessel does not contain "human" life, which may require saving.

otn

Nav wrote:
Very interesting. I had always thought that under UK and NZ law the
vessel and her cargo received similar rights of protection from other
mariners as passengers -of course the length you might go to would be
different. I Thought it was considered to be a vessel in distress and
not the passengers per se. I take your point though that the USC looks
different. Anyone else care to add anything?

Cheers

otnmbrd wrote:



Nav wrote:

Just a couple of thoughts. Here it is a part of the responsability of
all masters to go to the aid of stricken _vessels_ -i.e. whether they
have people on board is irrelevant. The only excuse not to is where
your crew or vessel would be placed in danger by providing aid -it
doesnt sound as if that was the case but it was your call. I'm not
sure if that principle applies in coastal U.S... Second what about
salvage laws? It doesn't sound like it would have been a big deal to
go after it. Wouldn't at least a part of the vessel become yours
under salvage laws?
I commend you for getting help for it -others might have just cursed
and hoped it went on the rocks for hitting your boat...

Cheers



46 U.S.C. sect 2304
(a) A Master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render
assistance to any "INDIVIDUAL" (my emphasis) found at sea in danger of
being lost, so far as the Master or individual in charge can do so
without serious danger to the Master's or individual's vessel or
individuals on board.

He had no responsibility to the boat, other than the responsibility he
took to inform the USCG. Upon receipt of the call, the CG should have
initiated a "securite" or "pan", depending on their perception of
events ..... course, it would also have been fine if the caller sent a
securite.
Naturally, if there is any doubt as to someone being aboard, and in
the spirit of how we should act, it is always well looked upon when
someone tries to save a boat, people or no people aboard.
G FWIW, I'd say he did fine.

otn