Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals

[1st ade]

 

. A bath tub (or a tabur yak dinghy) can go to sea, the wisdom of doing so it questionable.

 

Actually - the Tabur Yak (or at least it's bigger brother the Tabur Yak II) found good use at sea. It was so unsinkable (The space between inside [for the sake of description - the inside was still open to the elements] and outside was filled with non-absorbent foam) and I've seen one with the square bows cut off being used to scoop up injured surfers. The Skipper sat on the transom in a dry suit with his feet in the water on the inside of the boat and his hand on the tiller of the outboard. Not very manoeuvrable but it did the job.

[Dharl]

I think we are talking about high sea lawyers here who are use to dealing with incidents on tidal waters.

 

 

I know several Admiralty Lawyers ( not through professional need I hasten to add) I would be very surprised if any 'high sea lawyers' where involved in this case as they are very well versed in the rules and when and where they are applicable. The ruling regarding not having a lookout in the bow is also whitewash by a lawyer who should either know better or doesn't fully understand the rules and regulations, Col Regs or the overriding BW Bye-laws which unless repealed or replaced still stand as the law.

 

Single handed yachting is a different matter entirely!

[George94]

 

 

I know several Admiralty Lawyers ( not through professional need I hasten to add) I would be very surprised if any 'high sea lawyers' where involved in this case as they are very well versed in the rules and when and where they are applicable. The ruling regarding not having a lookout in the bow is also whitewash by a lawyer who should either know better or doesn't fully understand the rules and regulations, Col Regs or the overriding BW Bye-laws which unless repealed or replaced still stand as the law.

 

Single handed yachting is a different matter entirely!

 

What ruling?

 

And why is single-handed sailing different?

 

And what BW bye-laws over-ride the Colregs? I can't find anything.

 

I should be interested to know if anybody has previously been able to establish that the Colregs apply to the canals. Common sense suggests that they shouldn't.

[Theo]

 

What ruling?

 

And why is single-handed sailing different?

 

And what BW bye-laws over-ride the Colregs? I can't find anything.

 

I should be interested to know if anybody has previously been able to establish that the Colregs apply to the canals. Common sense suggests that they shouldn't.

 

IIRC (and it is a long time since I could claim to know the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea) there is a clause in the preamble which allows variation of the ColRegs according to local practice.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

What ruling?

 

And why is single-handed sailing different?

 

And what BW bye-laws over-ride the Colregs? I can't find anything.

 

I should be interested to know if anybody has previously been able to establish that the Colregs apply to the canals. Common sense suggests that they shouldn't.

 

 

IIRC (and it is a long time since I could claim to know the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea) there is a clause in the preamble which allows variation of the ColRegs according to local practice.

 

Post #8 (early in the thread) answers the question

[Dharl]

 

 

 

And why is single-handed sailing different?

 

 

 

Theo and Alan have answered the other parts of your question. With regards to Single handed sailing...and I am talking about long distance single handed sailing longer than 12hrs...Rule 5 deems it illegal. However that would only be enforceable if there was an incident where a single handed vessel met a vessel which was meeting a vessel with watchkeepers. The important bit here is maintaining a continuous lookout by sight and sound. A bit tricky if you are sleeping, even getting a cat nap! Of course there would have to be other circumstances brought into case, as am sure you are aware the legal fraternity ude more than one point in a case of law!

 

either way my original point was that being single handed has no place what so ever to be discussed regarding this case or any on the inland water way, notwithstanding the 1965 BW byelaws over righting the Colregs in the first place.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Theo and Alan have answered the other parts of your question. With regards to Single handed sailing...and I am talking about long distance single handed sailing longer than 12hrs...Rule 5 deems it illegal.

 

My insurance policy ( on the offshore cruising boat) states :

 

1.2 The Vessel must not be navigated single-handed by anyone for a period in excess of 18 consecutive hours.

[Dharl]

 

My insurance policy ( on the offshore cruising boat) states :

 

1.2 The Vessel must not be navigated single-handed by anyone for a period in excess of 18 consecutive hours.

 

fair point....I picked 12hrs as an arbitrary figure...nothing cast in stone there!

[George94]

 

Theo and Alan have answered the other parts of your question. With regards to Single handed sailing...and I am talking about long distance single handed sailing longer than 12hrs...Rule 5 deems it illegal. However that would only be enforceable if there was an incident where a single handed vessel met a vessel which was meeting a vessel with watchkeepers. The important bit here is maintaining a continuous lookout by sight and sound. A bit tricky if you are sleeping, even getting a cat nap! Of course there would have to be other circumstances brought into case, as am sure you are aware the legal fraternity ude more than one point in a case of law!

 

either way my original point was that being single handed has no place what so ever to be discussed regarding this case or any on the inland water way, notwithstanding the 1965 BW byelaws over righting the Colregs in the first place.

 

 

IIRC (and it is a long time since I could claim to know the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea) there is a clause in the preamble which allows variation of the ColRegs according to local practice.

 

Thank you, but some of my questions remain unanswered.

 

What ruling concerned not having a lookout at the bow?

 

I concede that the rules, as stated, don't make a concession for single-handers.

 

Where are the BW/CART bye-laws that over-ride the Colregs?

 

Has a court of law decided that the Colregs apply to the English canals? They may be connected to the sea, but they are hardly capable of handling sea-going vessels as envisaged by the Colregs.

[George94]

The Merchant Shipping defines "sea-going" as follows:

 

"sea-going" means going beyond the limits of waters of category A, B, C and D (as categorised in Merchant Shipping Notices No. M1504 and No. M1569).

 

That rules out the canals.

 

The PLA publishes proper navigational bye-laws (which over-ride the Colregs), and one of them states:

 

"All vessels navigating above the Thames Barrier, including tugs pushing craft ahead, Class IV, V and VI Passenger Vessels and vessels subject to the requirements of the High Speed Craft Code, which, by virtue of their construction or trim, have limited visibility from the wheelhouse, shall have a lookout stationed in an appropriate position, maintaining an effective lookout, so as to cover the area of limited visibility; or have made suitable technical arrangements such that an effective lookout can be maintained in the area of limited visibility.

 

Obviously the Port of London is not a canal, but its requirements are much more stringent than anything CART or its predecessor has come up with, so even if the Colregs DO apply to the canals, it is unlikely that a separate lookout would be required.

 

Finally, the PLA refers to the Colregs and other rules of the road in its bye-laws. If the Colregs, or any other regulations, apply to the canals, then CART should jolly well say so.

[magpie patrick]

 

Actually - the Tabur Yak (or at least it's bigger brother the Tabur Yak II) found good use at sea. It was so unsinkable (The space between inside [for the sake of description - the inside was still open to the elements] and outside was filled with non-absorbent foam) and I've seen one with the square bows cut off being used to scoop up injured surfers. The Skipper sat on the transom in a dry suit with his feet in the water on the inside of the boat and his hand on the tiller of the outboard. Not very manoeuvrable but it did the job.

 

Indeed, but if you want to take one from Liverpool to Dublin (other than on a car roof rack) you're on your own - I'll meet you there and help you with the locks on the Grand Canal!

[Keeping Up]

After a few emails between myself and the legal people, and a half-hour telephone conversation with one of their more senior people, I have made no progress at all. In fact some backwards progress and I am uttery fuming mad!

 

They are adamant that my legal case stands little or no prospect of success, because I was "substantially to blame" for the incident (in which, to recap, the other boat came out of a blind side-turning and hit the side of my boat that was virtually stationary under the bridge-hole on the main line). They said that although the BW Bye-Laws would take precedence over the COLREGS if they contradicted them, in this case the Bye-Laws require me to navigate with care and consideration and that the COLREGS would be taken by the courts as representing "best practice" for doing so. Therefore (they said) I was significantly failing in my Duty of Care by not having a lookout on the bows of my vessel. They accepted that my own view was unobstructed in my direction of travel and that a bow lookout would not have seen anything in time to make any difference because they would still have been under the bridge-hole until a couple of seconds before the impact; but they said that this merely indicates that I should have stopped before the bridge and sent a lookout through on foot before proceeding. When I asked how this would work if I had been single-handed, they said that taking a 20-metre boat through any bridge single-handed would be regarded by the Courts as being dangerously negligent.

 

They have stated bluntly that given the small likelihood of success, and the level of legal costs which would be incurred, they are not prepared to continue with my claim, except ...

 

One element of my claim was to seek compensation for Debbie who suffered a minor head injury. They have separated out that element, and made it into a case on its own. Because Debbie was demonstrably not at fault (being a passenger at the time) she stands a good chance of being able to claim compensation - against ME because I was the skipper and was "substantially to blame". In that case they would gladly represent her in that claim, and I should seek another lawyer because otherwise it would be a conflict of interest for them.

 

It seems I have no way forward with this. They advised against the Small Claims Court because an action there would inevitably trigger a counter-claim from the boatyard, for damage to their boat and its contents; and as I have no evidence that their boat was undamaged I would almost certainly end up paying their counter-claim and their legal costs!

 

Yes I am furious.

[magpie patrick]

Who are the solicitors? Would you like another recommendation? I have been approached by a firm of solicitors to provide evidence on a case much more flimsy than yours so if you want to PM me to compare notes please do

 

To avoid speculation, - I haven't been approached by the hire company's solicitors!

[Keeping Up]

Thanks Patrick. I'll send you a PM tomorrow.

[LEO]

After a few emails between myself and the legal people, and a half-hour telephone conversation with one of their more senior people, I have made no progress at all. In fact some backwards progress and I am uttery fuming mad!

 

They are adamant that my legal case stands little or no prospect of success, because I was "substantially to blame" for the incident (in which, to recap, the other boat came out of a blind side-turning and hit the side of my boat that was virtually stationary under the bridge-hole on the main line). They said that although the BW Bye-Laws would take precedence over the COLREGS if they contradicted them, in this case the Bye-Laws require me to navigate with care and consideration and that the COLREGS would be taken by the courts as representing "best practice" for doing so. Therefore (they said) I was significantly failing in my Duty of Care by not having a lookout on the bows of my vessel. They accepted that my own view was unobstructed in my direction of travel and that a bow lookout would not have seen anything in time to make any difference because they would still have been under the bridge-hole until a couple of seconds before the impact; but they said that this merely indicates that I should have stopped before the bridge and sent a lookout through on foot before proceeding. When I asked how this would work if I had been single-handed, they said that taking a 20-metre boat through any bridge single-handed would be regarded by the Courts as being dangerously negligent.

 

They have stated bluntly that given the small likelihood of success, and the level of legal costs which would be incurred, they are not prepared to continue with my claim, except ...

 

One element of my claim was to seek compensation for Debbie who suffered a minor head injury. They have separated out that element, and made it into a case on its own. Because Debbie was demonstrably not at fault (being a passenger at the time) she stands a good chance of being able to claim compensation - against ME because I was the skipper and was "substantially to blame". In that case they would gladly represent her in that claim, and I should seek another lawyer because otherwise it would be a conflict of interest for them.

 

It seems I have no way forward with this. They advised against the Small Claims Court because an action there would inevitably trigger a counter-claim from the boatyard, for damage to their boat and its contents; and as I have no evidence that their boat was undamaged I would almost certainly end up paying their counter-claim and their legal costs!

 

Yes I am furious.

 

Hi,

 

An appalling set of circumstances.

 

Years ago when I started work, my mentor and I would be called upon to produced scaled drawings following a detailed survey of junctions where road accidents had occurred, to be used as evidence by various aggrieved parties.

 

In your case it would seem that the solicitors involved perhaps have no knowledge of canals and junctions - perhaps a plan of the area ( photo map pinched from Google) would help - showing the junction, direction of travel on the boats and the fact that the other party could not have 'made the turn' at the speed they were travelling without hitting the bank hard. Sadly your boat acted as the bank in this instance.

 

Unfortunately, television coverage from TV progs featuring the Wests, Guy Martin and John Sargeant do little to promote the canals as anything except as water routes where 'dodgem boats' is acceptable and the inevitable cry 'it's a contact sport' prevails.

 

I hope you prevail and are successful.

 

L.

Edited April 4, 2016 by LEO

[Keeping Up]

Thanks Leo. The solicitors certainly seem unfamiliar with canals, they seem only to know all about rivers, ports, and seaways. I sent them sketch plans showing both boats' courses together with the course they should have taken, with hyperlinks to the Google Earth location in my email, as well as photographs taken from my direction of approach as well as the other boat's direction, so they had about as information as they could possibly have without actually being there.

 

They mentioned that the case would have had to go to the Admiralty Court, who never allocate 100% of the blame for any collision between two moving boats to just one party. They said that the judge in the Admiralty Court was very unlikely to know anything at all about canals, which didn't give me much confidence in the system either.

[Paul C]

To be honest what you've written doesn't inspire confidence, I'd try the Insurance Ombudsman now, or whatever they're called these days.

[cheshire~rose]

Thanks Leo. The solicitors certainly seem unfamiliar with canals, they seem only to know all about rivers, ports, and seaways. I sent them sketch plans showing both boats' courses together with the course they should have taken, with hyperlinks to the Google Earth location in my email, as well as photographs taken from my direction of approach as well as the other boat's direction, so they had about as information as they could possibly have without actually being there.

 

They mentioned that the case would have had to go to the Admiralty Court, who never allocate 100% of the blame for any collision between two moving boats to just one party. They said that the judge in the Admiralty Court was very unlikely to know anything at all about canals, which didn't give me much confidence in the system either.

 

Might I suggest it could be worth you having a chat to Mike Carter the surveyor?

 

http://www.marinesurveysltd.co.uk/

 

He is very likely to give you some advise over the phone without charge on the basis of an initial consultation and is extremely experienced in handling insurance work. He will have a good idea of whether or not it is likely to be worth you employing his services to pursue the matter and he might just have some pearls of wisdom that set you off in a slightly different direction.

 

I hope you get some satisfaction with this soon.

[David Mack]

One element of my claim was to seek compensation for Debbie who suffered a minor head injury. They have separated out that element, and made it into a case on its own. Because Debbie was demonstrably not at fault (being a passenger at the time) she stands a good chance of being able to claim compensation - against ME because I was the skipper and was "substantially to blame". In that case they would gladly represent her in that claim, and I should seek another lawyer because otherwise it would be a conflict of interest for them.

 

 

So the lawyers that you have paid for through your insurance premium, to advise and represent you, are now saying that they are prepared to represent your passenger in a claim against you? That sounds completely unprofessional to me, and surely grounds for a complaint to the insurance company, and the Legal Ombudsman!

[Keeping Up]

 

So the lawyers that you have paid for through your insurance premium, to advise and represent you, are now saying that they are prepared to represent your passenger in a claim against you? That sounds completely unprofessional to me, and surely grounds for a complaint to the insurance company, and the Legal Ombudsman!

 

I've not heard from them formally on that yet, I'll react when I do, but the point that they made is that the boat is insured in joint names so they are free to choose which one of us they represent.

[tidal]

I'm surprised that the Admiralty Court would have jurisdiction given the location and vessel types.

[Keeping Up]

I'm surprised that the Admiralty Court would have jurisdiction given the location and vessel types.

 

Me too ... but if not them, which court would it be?

[BruceinSanity]

I'm surprised that the Admiralty Court would have jurisdiction given the location and vessel types.

When Tom Jones had his run in with a boat builder over Waiouru, his case was heard in the Admiralty Court. The boat was located at a works not even on the canal in Staffs at the time.

 

He blogged about it here: http://www.narrowboat-waiouru.co.uk/2011/07/despicable-ben-harp-narrowboat-builders.html

[Steilsteven]

Thanks Leo. The solicitors certainly seem unfamiliar with canals, they seem only to know all about rivers, ports, and seaways. I sent them sketch plans showing both boats' courses together with the course they should have taken, with hyperlinks to the Google Earth location in my email, as well as photographs taken from my direction of approach as well as the other boat's direction, so they had about as information as they could possibly have without actually being there.

 

They mentioned that the case would have had to go to the Admiralty Court, who never allocate 100% of the blame for any collision between two moving boats to just one party. They said that the judge in the Admiralty Court was very unlikely to know anything at all about canals, which didn't give me much confidence in the system either.

I think you're going to have to take this one on the chin, I'm sorry to say.

Your insurers are obviously not pursuing the third party for your insured costs, so you're already at a disadvantage.

The solicitors are paid by your insurers, with the view that they will only pursue winnable cases in order to keep costs to a minimum.

They don't consider your case to be winnable and have advised you accordingly.

 

Your options, as I see them, are a) seek advice from an independent solicitor which could incur more expense with little hope of success or b)cut your losses, accept the advice you've already been given and put it down to experience.

 

I would guess that letting them pursue Debbie's claim for compensation against you would also be the most cost effective route too.

 

Keith

[tidal]

Noted Bruce

That will teach me to read blogs more carefully as though I remembered the story I had simply read "High Court" and not the Admiralty bit