Jump to content

Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals


Keeping Up

Featured Posts

Reading those T&Cs, I still reckon it's worth £25 for a small claims court suit. The company is quite likely just to cough up to save its own legal costs. If they want to defend the action, they could only do so by identifying the hirer and exposing him/her to a small claim in turn.

They can defend the action by simply explaining that they are the hire company and that they weren't driving the boat at the time. To get compensation for harm done to you or your property you have to demnstrate negligence - and negligence which was the proximate cause of your loss. This basic fact would probably be picked up before any papers were served on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can defend the action by simply explaining that they are the hire company and that they weren't driving the boat at the time. To get compensation for harm done to you or your property you have to demnstrate negligence - and negligence which was the proximate cause of your loss. This basic fact would probably be picked up before any papers were served on them.

 

The OP seems to have plenty of evidence, including photos of the damage to his boat, which includes damage to the opposite side of the hull from having been hit at such speed that he was driven into the side. All that supports the claim that the hire boat was going too fast, which in turn supports a claim of negligence.

 

The owners can't simply say "we're the hire company and weren't driving the boat". That's no better than "a big boy did it and ran away".

 

If they say "Mr Fred Bloggs of 42 Dull Street, Borington, had signed this attached hire contract, taking full responsibility for its handling during that time and indemnifying us against any damages caused", then they have the makings of a defense, but then you have the hirer to go after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also not quite convinced by this idea being thrown around that only the steerer of the hire boat at that moment is liable here.

 

Consider a company who let a penniless moron steer one of their ships. He hits something and causes millions in damage. Surely they are not off the hook by saying that it's all his fault.

 

They have a responsibility for the vessel they own, whether they steer it themselves or let someone else do so.

If I hire a van for rent a wreck and run it to the side of your car, after the insurance company have put your car right are you going to sue Rent a Wreck for your uninsured loss or me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I hire a van for rent a wreck and run it to the side of your car, after the insurance company have put your car right are you going to sue Rent a Wreck for your uninsured loss or me?

 

If Rent a Wreck refuse to identify who was driving the vehicle, I'm going to sue Rent a Wreck. Unless they can show evidence to the contrary, they are going to be presumed to have been in charge of the vehicle.

 

Think about it. If this wasn't how it worked, you would always be able to get out of paying any damages by saying "my mate was driving" and refusing to identify your mate.

Edited by Giant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Rent a Wreck refuse to identify who was driving the vehicle, I'm going to sue Rent a Wreck. Unless they can show evidence to the contrary, they are going to be presumed to have been in charge of the vehicle.

 

Think about it. If this wasn't how it worked, you would always be able to get out of paying any damages by saying "my mate was driving" and refusing to identify your mate.

 

They're not obliged, in fact they're prevented by law, from revealing the driver at the time to ANYONE. They ARE obliged to reveal it to eg the Police etc. If they don't cooperate you need a court order to obtain the information of the driver. The driver is liable for the driving of the van - so suing the hire firm is no use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They're not obliged, in fact they're prevented by law, from revealing the driver at the time to ANYONE. They ARE obliged to reveal it to eg the Police etc. If they don't cooperate you need a court order to obtain the information of the driver. The driver is liable for the driving of the van - so suing the hire firm is no use.

 

From CRT's website

 

As a boat licence holder, you are responsible for any injury or damage caused by you or the boat. Damages could be substantial and it is therefore a requirement that you have third party liability insurance for the boat.

 

So, Star Line are the licence holder, the first stop of the buck is with them

 

Think about it - it is perfectly possible for a boat to do damage with no-one on it, in circumstances that the owner or master couldn't reasonably foresee, and that would be covered by third party insurance

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not obliged, in fact they're prevented by law, from revealing the driver at the time to ANYONE. They ARE obliged to reveal it to eg the Police etc. If they don't cooperate you need a court order to obtain the information of the driver. The driver is liable for the driving of the van - so suing the hire firm is no use.

 

OK, I see the data protection angle.

 

But it's far from impossible for the hire firm to have some part of the liability. If they are found, say, to be hiring out boats with lacking or improper instruction to the hirers, or if the boat had some fault affecting ability to control its speed, then they are going to have some part of the liability - perhaps even all in the (unlikely) faulty throttle scenario.

 

Without further information as to how the hire boat came to be going so fast, the proper thing may be to list both the unknown hirer and the hire company as defendants. The court can decide to what extent each of them is responsible, if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Think about it. If this wasn't how it worked, you would always be able to get out of paying any damages by saying "my mate was driving" and refusing to identify your mate.

Which is exactly what can happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

 

You'll notice that there's no question there of holding the car hire company liable. The only liable person - the driver - has got away with it. It happens, I'm afraid. You can, of course, as PaulC pointed out, pursue the hire company for the name of the hirer, but you can't claim that they're liable for the accident (because, unless there's something we don't know, they're not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what can happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

 

You'll notice that there's no question there of holding the car hire company liable. The only liable person - the driver - has got away with it. It happens, I'm afraid. You can, of course, as PaulC pointed out, pursue the hire company for the name of the hirer, but you can't claim that they're liable for the accident (because, unless there's something we don't know, they're not).

 

According to CRT - the owner of the boat (in this case the hire company) is liable

 

There's specific legislation regarding telling the appropriate authorities who is driving a car at any time, and the offence of not providing those details. There is no equivalent for boats.

 

 

No there isn't, but again note

 

As a boat licence holder, you are responsible for any injury or damage caused by you or the boat.

 

Presumably because of the difficulty of stating who, amongst the crew, might have caused any accident , it is the licence holder in the first instance who is liable

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

According to CRT - the owner of the boat (in this case the hire company) is liable

 

 

 

No there isn't, but again note

 

As a boat licence holder, you are responsible for any injury or damage caused by you or the boat.

 

Presumably because of the difficulty of stating who, amongst the crew, might have caused any accident , it is the licence holder in the first instance who is liable

I don't think that would be CRTs decision, the judge my take a different view depending of circumstances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's specific legislation regarding telling the appropriate authorities who is driving a car at any time, and the offence of not providing those details. There is no equivalent for boats.

 

Except - anyone who has licenced their boat since 1/5/15 (presumably virtually everyone) has agreed to C&RT releasing the licence holders personal details to anyone they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to CRT - the owner of the boat (in this case the hire company) is liable

 

 

 

 

No there isn't, but again note

 

As a boat licence holder, you are responsible for any injury or damage caused by you or the boat.

 

Presumably because of the difficulty of stating who, amongst the crew, might have caused any accident , it is the licence holder in the first instance who is liable

CRT can say what they want, but they can't unilaterally rewrite the very ancient law of tort!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what can happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

 

You'll notice that there's no question there of holding the car hire company liable. The only liable person - the driver - has got away with it. It happens, I'm afraid. You can, of course, as PaulC pointed out, pursue the hire company for the name of the hirer, but you can't claim that they're liable for the accident (because, unless there's something we don't know, they're not).

 

Two things about this

 

One - the police say they can not prove who was driving - if they could they may have prosecuted (although we don't now that)

 

two - someone was fined and given six penalty points for failing to declare who was driving - that's a long way short of "getting away with it"

 

I'm not sure it was a hire car either, it sounds like a lease car, possibly similar to a company car arrangement

 

Second, although we refer to "car insurance" these days it's nearly always "driver insurance for the particular car" - it always has been "driver insurance" even in the days of "any driver" - boats do not have "named drivers" or "any driver" - it is the boat that is insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four years ago while we were moored on our paid for and official mooring, a JCB with faulty brakes lost control and careered down the bank, crashing in to our narrowboat causing thousands and thousands of pounds worth of damage and causing us too to have uninsured losses. Last September our insurance company whose legal beagles were also representing us too, accepted just 80% of the claim from the JCB owner's insurance. If, in this world of greys, we could not get 100% recompence in this black and white case, I'm afraid there's no hope for the OP although we do fully empathise with his frustration.

Edited by wandering snail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Second, although we refer to "car insurance" these days it's nearly always "driver insurance for the particular car" - it always has been "driver insurance" even in the days of "any driver" - boats do not have "named drivers" or "any driver" - it is the boat that is insured.

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. The policyholder is the insured and is indemnified against any claims arising from his or her use of the boat. To follow your logic, if someone stole your boat and caused damage, then you would be liable for that damage. In fact, to take your logic further, you wouldn't be liable but your boat would! Issues of liability, negligence, duty of care and so on are well established in common law. The person negligently causing damage to another person or person's property is liable for that damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what can happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

 

You'll notice that there's no question there of holding the car hire company liable. The only liable person - the driver - has got away with it. It happens, I'm afraid. You can, of course, as PaulC pointed out, pursue the hire company for the name of the hirer, but you can't claim that they're liable for the accident (because, unless there's something we don't know, they're not).

 

That story makes no mention of civil liability at all. It's entirely about the question of bringing a criminal prosecution against the driver.

 

There's also no issue in that case with the hire company failing to identify the hirer. Evidently they did in fact identify two people who were eligible to be driving the vehicle at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've decided to risk the £60 court fee by submitting a claim through the small claims court (now known as Money Claims On Line which I reckon makes it sound like one of those dodgy companies that advertise on TV or make spam phone calls). I'll update the resuts here when something happens, which in theory should be within 14 days.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done. When Argos tried to make their terms and conditions over ride consumer law re a £20 watch and Trading Standards were advise that I roll over while admitting I might have a valid claim the threat of a Small Claims court action sent to their head office soon elicited a suitable response. If they had not replaced the watch I would have gone to court even though it would have cost me more than the watch was worth.

 

We are back to just how equal we all are under the law I am afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Because COLREGS explicitly state that they only apply to the sea and waters connected to the sea.

 

But - the British Waterways "General Canal Bye-Laws" of 1965 specifically cover the use of sound signals (which are in line with the ColRegs)

 

Section 12 :

 

Sound signals 12.

(1) Every power-driven vessel navigating on any canal shall be furnished with an efficient whistle.

 

(2) When vessels are in sight of one another the master of a power-driven vessel under way in taking any of the courses hereinafter referred to in this Bye-law shall indicate that course by following signals on such whistle, namely : One short blast to mean “I am altering my course to starboard”, two short blasts to mean “I am altering my course to port”, three short blasts to mean “My engines are going astern”, four short blasts to mean “I am about to turn or to turn round”. This signal shall be followed after a short interval by one short blast if turning to starboard or two short blasts if turning to port and shall be repeated to any approaching vessel, whereupon such approaching vessel shall take action to avoid collision.

 

(3) In fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorm or any other conditions similarly restricting visibility whether by night or day, the following signals shall be used:-

(a) A power-driven vessel making way through the water shall sound, at intervals of not more than two minutes a prolonged blast.

(B) A power-driven vessel under way but stopped and making no way through the water shall sound, at intervals of not more than two minutes, two prolonged blasts with an interval of about one second between them.

© A vessel when towing and a vessel under way which is unable to get out of the way of an approaching vessel through being not under command or unable to manoeuvre as required by these Bye-laws shall sound, at intervals of not more than one minute, three blasts in succession, namely, one prolonged blast followed by two short blasts.

(d) Every vessel aground in the fairway or mid-channel shall, so long as she remains aground, signify the same by sounding five

or more blasts in rapid succession at intervals of not more than one minute.

 

(4) When the view of the canal ahead is obstructed by a bend in the canal and until such view is no longer obscured, a powerdriven vessel making way through the water shall sound, at intervals of twenty seconds, a prolonged blast.

 

(5) The Master of a power driven vessel approaching a lock which is operated by staff provided by the Board for that purpose and requiring the bridge to be opened shall sound one prolonged blast, except that on the Weaver Navigation when navigating downstream he shall sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast.

 

(6) The Master of a power-driven vessel intending to pass a moveable bridge, which is operated by staff provided by the Board or other authority, and requiring the bridge to be opened shall sound one prolonged blast, except that on the Weaver Navigation when navigating downstream he shall sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast.

 

The question is does a T-junction classify as a 'bend' in the canal - it surely must for one of the boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They're not obliged, in fact they're prevented by law, from revealing the driver at the time to ANYONE. They ARE obliged to reveal it to eg the Police etc. If they don't cooperate you need a court order to obtain the information of the driver. The driver is liable for the driving of the van - so suing the hire firm is no use.

 

That is a commonly held, but entirely inaccurate, view of what the Data Protection Act says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The question is does a T-junction classify as a 'bend' in the canal - it surely must for one of the boats.

Yes I agree it should. I maintain, m'Lud, that it counts as a bend for the boat entering from the side arm (up the middle of the letter T and turning through 90 degrees) but NOT for the boat going straight along the top of the T. Mine was the latter, going straight ahead, although as it happens I had sounded my horn but only because there is a sign on the bridge requesting you to do so as there may be canoeists ahead.

Edited by Keeping Up
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The question is does a T-junction classify as a 'bend' in the canal - it surely must for one of the boats.

 

I'd say so, yes. Well, that one you crashed at is.

 

Some (a handful) of junctions are sufficiently straight or open to offer a good view in all 3 directions - for example that one from the Caldon Canal to its Leek branch - its like a shallow forked junction so at least from Etruria - Uttoxeter and Etruria - Leek, its pretty straight. If you did Leek - Uttoxeter though, its a very tight turn around the two prongs of the fork. I suppose Braunston Turn could be another example of a not-too-curved, good visibility junction too. But these are the exceptions, the vast majority would be best done with a horn blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.