Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:29:10 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


As usual, you're confusing a little bit of knowledge for wisdom. Of
course the rules are not abrogated because of the lack of a lookout.
I'm not claiming that the rules somehow changed because of the lack of a
lookout.


Ok, so what did you mean by


the port/starboard rule only applies "when in sight" and thus

was somewhat voided because of the lack of a proper lookout.


This is looking retrospectively, for the purpose of assessing financial
responsibility. It would be easy for someone to say "But I was on
starboard tack - its entirely his fault!" But being the stand-on vessel
has responsibilities, and one of them is maintaining a proper lookout.

In the traditional terms, the stand-on vessel is "privileged," but when
it comes times to assess liability, some of that privilege is lost if
you don't follow all of the rules.



Are you now distinguishing between "voided" and "abrogated?" Saying the
port/starboard rule was not somewhat "abrogated" (first quoted paragraph
above) but not somewhat "voided" (second quoted paragraph)?

I'm not a lawyer so I have no responsibility to use these terms in their
proper legal sense, if that's what you mean. Just like you, as a
lawyer, are not required to be truthful or honest as most ordinary
people understand those terms.