On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:43 GMT, akheel
wrote:

There were also
some other unusal facts pecuilar to the case, but the precedent
established is that every case will be judged on it's own facts with no
hard and fast rules for assigning fault.

I don't know if anybody has told you this, but most accident cases are
decided by the CG in this exact manner.

The reason? All mariners have the responsibility to avoid collision at
all times - right of way or no right of way.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:43 GMT, akheel
wrote:

There were also
some other unusal facts pecuilar to the case, but the precedent
established is that every case will be judged on it's own facts with no
hard and fast rules for assigning fault.

I don't know if anybody has told you this, but most accident cases are
decided by the CG in this exact manner.

Being an inland boater, I'm not too familar with CG matters. I assume the
CG decisions you refer to relate to licensing cases?

The reason? All mariners have the responsibility to avoid collision at
all times - right of way or no right of way.

Makes perfect sense to me, but I guess before this, the approach wasn't
so well established in a civil lawsuit context, since the Crowley court
took 14 pages to explain themselves. Obviously, in the real world, only
an idiot would collide rather than give up the right of way, but to
paraphrase P.T. Barnum, it seems there's one born every minute.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:17:54 GMT, akheel
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:43 GMT, akheel
wrote:

There were also
some other unusal facts pecuilar to the case, but the precedent
established is that every case will be judged on it's own facts with no
hard and fast rules for assigning fault.

I don't know if anybody has told you this, but most accident cases are
decided by the CG in this exact manner.

Being an inland boater, I'm not too familar with CG matters. I assume the
CG decisions you refer to relate to licensing cases?

The reason? All mariners have the responsibility to avoid collision at
all times - right of way or no right of way.

Makes perfect sense to me, but I guess before this, the approach wasn't
so well established in a civil lawsuit context, since the Crowley court
took 14 pages to explain themselves. Obviously, in the real world, only
an idiot would collide rather than give up the right of way, but to
paraphrase P.T. Barnum, it seems there's one born every minute.

I think they reproduce faster than that on the Chesapeake Bay.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:17:54 GMT, akheel
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:43 GMT, akheel
wrote:

There were also
some other unusal facts pecuilar to the case, but the precedent
established is that every case will be judged on it's own facts with no
hard and fast rules for assigning fault.

I don't know if anybody has told you this, but most accident cases are
decided by the CG in this exact manner.

Being an inland boater, I'm not too familar with CG matters. I assume the
CG decisions you refer to relate to licensing cases?

Collision investigations.

The reason? All mariners have the responsibility to avoid collision at
all times - right of way or no right of way.

Makes perfect sense to me, but I guess before this, the approach wasn't
so well established in a civil lawsuit context, since the Crowley court
took 14 pages to explain themselves. Obviously, in the real world, only
an idiot would collide rather than give up the right of way, but to
paraphrase P.T. Barnum, it seems there's one born every minute.

True enough.