CASE 49        

Summary of the Facts
In a moderate to rough sea and a fresh breeze, S, close-hauled on starboard tack, converged with PW and PL, overlapped and broad reaching on port tack on a different leg of the course. The rigging of PW and S touched, in spite of S luffing sharply in attempting to avoid a collision, but there was no damage or injury.
Two protests arose from this one incident and were heard separately. In the first protest, S v. PW, the latter was disqualified under rule 10. The facts found did not mention PL. In the second protest, PW v. PL, the latter was disqualified under rule 18.2(a) for not giving PW room to keep clear of S, an obstruction. PW appealed.

Decision
Appeal upheld. In cases of this kind, the two protests should be heard together in the presence of all the boats involved. This saves repetition and ensures that the evidence presented will help to illuminate all aspects of the incident. Had this procedure been followed, the protest committee would have learned that the collision between PW and S arose from the inability of PW to bear away because PL did not give her room to do so, and, as provided in rule 64.1(b), PW would have been exonerated from her breach of rule 10.
There was evidence that PL knew (and had she been keeping a proper lookout, she must have known) that S was converging with PW and PL, that PW would be likely to need room from PL to avoid a possibly serious collision, and that the situation was developing rapidly. PL was correctly disqualified and the decision to disqualify PW is reversed.