|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Mike Maurice (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 13:45:35 EDT
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/8thmobarge.pdf
This document in PDF format is the admiralty court findings, the result of
a collision between a tug/barge and a casino cruise ship on the Mississippi
River.
This case is very recent and is full of useful insight.
Consider the following items.
"Because the Miss Belterra had no running lights, Cummins assumed he was
approaching a construction site."
The Belterra was the casino ship. Notice that it "had no running lights".
Notice also that it was held only 10% at fault. If you want to understand
this, then keep in mind that the courts have held that lights may or may
not be of any help in avoiding a collision and may not be relied upon and
may be held to be only a minor fault if not exactly correct.
Next item.
"Missouri Barge interprets Rule 14(d) to be an option to 14(a) rather than a
requirement of its vessels traveling on the Mississippi River. We disagree.
The plain
language of 14(d), regardless of the custom of the industry, clearly trumps
the default
rule of 14(a). Thus, a downward vessel on the Mississippi River is required
to".
Notice that the court struck down the notion that "the custom of the
industry" trumps the nav rules. Rule 14(d) "requires" the down bound vessel
to propose the method of passing.
You may recall that I have pointed out in the past that a defense of
"industry custom" will not prevail in court and not likely with the Coast
Guard.
Mike
Capt. Mike Maurice
Tualatin(Portland), Oregon
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
|