I'm a boater and a lawyer. So what could be better than an admiralty law
case. For years I've read discussions here about the COLREGS, better
known as the Rules of the Road for boating. Inevitably, someone will
declare that the overtaking vessel must give way and that any resulting
collision is the fault of that vessel's captain, that's it, no question,
case closed. Well guess again. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in the recently decided case of Crowley Marine v.
Maritrans, you must look at all of the factors and assign blame on a
comparative fault basis. In this case, the captain of the overtaking
vessel was judged to be 30% and fault when it struck another vessel and
the captain of the struck vessel was 70% at fault, not withstanding that
the overtaking vessel had violated Rule 13(a) by failing to give way. It
didn't help that the captain of the vessel that was struck had "serious
medical and alcohol problems" according to the court. 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.

Here's a link if you'd like to read a case that discusses maritime law
going all the way back to the 12th century.

http://tiny.cc/NfV1I

Interesting for those who like this sort of thing.

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

I'm a boater and a lawyer. So what could be better than an admiralty law
case. For years I've read discussions here about the COLREGS, better
known as the Rules of the Road for boating. Inevitably, someone will
declare that the overtaking vessel must give way and that any resulting
collision is the fault of that vessel's captain, that's it, no question,
case closed. Well guess again. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in the recently decided case of Crowley Marine v.
Maritrans, you must look at all of the factors and assign blame on a
comparative fault basis. In this case, the captain of the overtaking
vessel was judged to be 30% and fault when it struck another vessel and
the captain of the struck vessel was 70% at fault, not withstanding that
the overtaking vessel had violated Rule 13(a) by failing to give way. It
didn't help that the captain of the vessel that was struck had "serious
medical and alcohol problems" according to the court. 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.

Here's a link if you'd like to read a case that discusses maritime law
going all the way back to the 12th century.

http://tiny.cc/NfV1I

Interesting for those who like this sort of thing.

The link appears to be a fake.

Here's one that works. http://tinyurl.com/5gjs6g

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.

wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:06:29 GMT, John H.
wrote:

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

I'm a boater and a lawyer. So what could be better than an admiralty law
case. For years I've read discussions here about the COLREGS, better
known as the Rules of the Road for boating. Inevitably, someone will
declare that the overtaking vessel must give way and that any resulting
collision is the fault of that vessel's captain, that's it, no question,
case closed. Well guess again. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in the recently decided case of Crowley Marine v.
Maritrans, you must look at all of the factors and assign blame on a
comparative fault basis. In this case, the captain of the overtaking
vessel was judged to be 30% and fault when it struck another vessel and
the captain of the struck vessel was 70% at fault, not withstanding that
the overtaking vessel had violated Rule 13(a) by failing to give way. It
didn't help that the captain of the vessel that was struck had "serious
medical and alcohol problems" according to the court. 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.

Here's a link if you'd like to read a case that discusses maritime law
going all the way back to the 12th century.

http://tiny.cc/NfV1I

Interesting for those who like this sort of thing.
The link appears to be a fake.

The link works just fine.




The link takes you to a *.PDF of a ninth circuit court case and works
fine, if differently than the "usual" "tinyurl." The problem is Herring,
whose computer skills are non-existent.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:40:43 GMT, akheel
wrote:

I'm a boater and a lawyer. So what could be better than an admiralty law
case. For years I've read discussions here about the COLREGS, better
known as the Rules of the Road for boating. Inevitably, someone will
declare that the overtaking vessel must give way and that any resulting
collision is the fault of that vessel's captain, that's it, no question,
case closed. Well guess again. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in the recently decided case of Crowley Marine v.
Maritrans, you must look at all of the factors and assign blame on a
comparative fault basis. In this case, the captain of the overtaking
vessel was judged to be 30% and fault when it struck another vessel and
the captain of the struck vessel was 70% at fault, not withstanding that
the overtaking vessel had violated Rule 13(a) by failing to give way. It
didn't help that the captain of the vessel that was struck had "serious
medical and alcohol problems" according to the court. 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.

Here's a link if you'd like to read a case that discusses maritime law
going all the way back to the 12th century.

http://tiny.cc/NfV1I

Interesting for those who like this sort of thing.

The link appears to be a fake.

Here's one that works. http://tinyurl.com/5gjs6g

tiny.cc is a rip off of tinyurl.com that forces you to see a commercial
before arriving at the ultimate URL.

On Jul 31, 9:24*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...





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

I'm a boater and a lawyer. So what could be better than an admiralty law
case. For years I've read discussions here about the COLREGS, better
known as the Rules of the Road for boating. Inevitably, someone will
declare that the overtaking vessel must give way and that any resulting
collision is the fault of that vessel's captain, that's it, no question,
case closed. Well guess again. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in the recently decided case of Crowley Marine v.
Maritrans, you must look at all of the factors and assign blame on a
comparative fault basis. In this case, the captain of the overtaking
vessel was judged to be 30% and fault when it struck another vessel and
the captain of the struck vessel was 70% at fault, not withstanding that
the overtaking vessel had violated Rule 13(a) by failing to give way. It
didn't help that the captain of the vessel that was struck had "serious
medical and alcohol problems" according to the court. 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.

Here's a link if you'd like to read a case that discusses maritime law
going all the way back to the 12th century.

http://tiny.cc/NfV1I

Interesting for those who like this sort of thing.

The link appears to be a fake.

Here's one that works.http://tinyurl.com/5gjs6g

tiny.cc is a rip off of tinyurl.com that forces you to see a commercial
before arriving at the ultimate URL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry doesn't understand that.......

"D.Duck" wrote in
:

snip

tiny.cc is a rip off of tinyurl.com that forces you to see a
commercial before arriving at the ultimate URL.



Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I (the OP) was indeed duped by the
similar names. Next time the real tinyurl.com.

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.