"Richard Casady" <richardcasady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:48230a1e.854651515@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:27:57 -0400, jeff <jeff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>The other point is that if the were an accident, each master would be
>>judged on whether the used all available resources to avoid the
>>accident. In particular, a boat where an electric motor could be turned
>>on with the flip of a switch (or a boat already running an engine in
>>neutral) would be expected to use power to avoid the accident.
>
>
> According to the COLREGS, nobody is ever blameless in a collision. The
> court assigns a degree of blame to everyone involved. Failing to flip
> a switch or mash a starter button to avoid collision is going to look
> poor, to say the least. My observtion of car crashes is that a
> substantal percentage of the cases, the victim also had a chance to
> avoid it. However, auto law is generally less fair, in that the one
> the most wrong often gets all the consequences.
>
> Casady
If you're at anchor, in a designated anchorage, you have your boat marked
as
such (being extra cautious), you and the other six people (all nuns in
their
habits) are sober and keeping watch, and a drunk on a jet ski slams into
the
side of your boat, you're probably not going to be held blameless. Well,
maybe not, since the drunk might be able to claim that he was distracted
by
the habits. LOL
--
"j" ganz @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
