When two boats make contact, both may be exonerated when a third boat that
broke a rule caused the incident.
Summary of the Facts
As P approached the mud flats, she tacked onto port. M, on starboard tack,
immediately hailed and then hailed again when one hull length away, since
it was apparent that P was trying to cross ahead, and collision would
be inevitable. When there was no response to her hails, M tacked, hailing
S as she was going about. S tried to respond but there was contact. P
retired. S protested M under rule 10. The protest committee, commenting
that M had sufficient time to take avoiding action to keep clear of both
P and S, disqualified M under rule 14.
M appealed, holding that the protest committee erred in suggesting that
she, a right-of-way boat, was obliged to keep clear of P. Furthermore,
after her second hail, had she borne away and then P finally responded
by tacking, contact was likely. M also alleged that S had failed to carry
out her obligation under rule 19.
Decision
Appeal upheld. P, which properly retired, broke rule 10. She caused the
problem and M, in the circumstances, took proper action to mitigate the
effects of P’s error of judgment. Both M and S were the innocent victims
of P’s failure to observe the rules. M broke rule 13, but is exonerated
under rule 64.1(b). S was subject to rule 14, but did not break it as
it was not possible for her to avoid contact. P’s illegal action was primarily
responsible for the incident. M’s claim under rule 19 would have failed
because, according to the definition Obstruction, P was not an obstruction
since M and S were not required to keep clear of P or give P room.
CASE 10
