Sailing boat overrun by motoryacht, deadly accident

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Rumrace

It is going to fall under Civil Law in Italy. The judge will be an active participant.
Were it Common Law Ontario and I was the crown I would be looking for facts to charge the power boater with Manslaughter and the sailboat with criminal negligence causing death.

Thank you for your considered legal opinion.

[Rumrace]

THe Crown is not a judge and never passes judgment.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by B_Hunter45

In Italy Justice is very subjective, the phrase "money can't by me love" might be true, however in Italy it can buy you justice or injustice, depends on which side you are.

True also in the US as the “ juice “ demonstrated

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh sure, agreed. There's always something to learn.

I'm just against representations that

• colregs are infallible at preventing collisions, even against grossly asymmetrical capabilities, and involving negligence or malice
• people following the reasonable expectations of a common interaction between pleasure craft bear substantial fault if a clearly negligent operator with a faster craft runs them over

Are you sure you're open to learning anything?

I summarized how the sailboater could have avoided this, by following the colregs. Any comment on that point from you - no, crickets.

Now, you're once again grossly mischaracterizing what anyone here has represented, as well as the apparent circumstances of the case at hand.

Your bias is undeniable - you describe it as one vessel "running over" another vessel - which is wrong. Two vessels collided, because they both failed in some regard.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Rumrace

It is going to fall under Civil Law in Italy. The judge will be an active participant.
Were it Common Law Ontario and I was the crown I would be looking for facts to charge the power boater with Manslaughter and the sailboat with criminal negligence causing death.

Rumrace, can you imagine what the charges would be if your flying Donzi had been knocked sideways at the last second by an odd wave and you landed on that sailboat at 50 knots?

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Rumrace, can you imagine what the charges would be if your flying Donzi had been knocked sideways at the last second by an odd wave and you landed on that sailboat at 50 knots?

That would probably be just about the only way you could have a collision where 100% of fault might go to 1 boat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Your bias is undeniable - you describe it as one vessel "running over" another vessel - which is wrong. Two vessels collided, because they both failed in some regard.

A fast boat ran over a slow boat. The asymmetry in power and control between the two in this situation is undeniable. The failures of the faster boat made this a tragic accident. Regulations and guidance are not always proof against negligence or malice.

I'm not saying that the sailboat bears zero responsibility, but it is miniscule compared to the fault of the motoryacht. Basically, the sailboat was possibly not perfect in their avoidance. Kind of a high bar.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Basically, the sailboat was possibly not perfect in their avoidance.

"Possibly not perfect"?
Way to understate the obvious.

Apparently no lookout or reaction during 20 mins in sight of each other, 30 mins on radar, 40+ mins on AIS. And then allegedly making a "last minute emergency avoidance manoeuvre" after having already passed ahead of the powerboat, reversing course to bring them into the collision, that would not have happened otherwise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

"Possibly not perfect"?
Way to understate the obvious.

Apparently no lookout or reaction during 20 mins in sight of each other, 30 mins on radar, 40+ mins on AIS. And then allegedly making a "last minute emergency avoidance manoeuvre" after having already passed ahead of the powerboat, reversing course to bring them into the collision, that would not have happened otherwise.

You assume way too much. Of course such gymnastics are about the only way you can possibly justify your victim-blaming.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You assume way too much. Of course such gymnastics are about the only way you can possibly justify your victim-blaming.

Again with the pathetic deflection - victim blaming. Really?!?!

We can only go by what information is available, and an application of logical reasoning - no gymnastics involved. All of my assumptions are realistic.
You haven't offered a logical rebuttal to any part of my assessment, 'cause you have nothing. So you revert to juvenile accusations of victim-blaming.
Sad.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Back to the original story. The Danish newspapers had this.

Turns out the people on board the motorboat were Danes. The skipper and his son were (supposedly) on the bridge piloting the boat.
This explanation has been provided by one of the women on board (one wife of skipper, one wife of son) who were sunning themselves on the aft deck.

She claims that the two on the bridge were blinded by the sun and the autopilot was on, therefore they couldn't see the sailboat until they were right on top of it and with the autopilot on - they couldn't make evasive maneuvers.

The motorboat was going about 30kn..

Followed by...

The son (who was on the bridge) now says that neither he, nor his father were drinking or had had any drinks at all. They were blinded by the glare but he claims that the sailboat "did not follow the Colregs".

Apparently the sailboat had its mainsail up and might (no confirmation of this yet) been motorsailing (no confirmation, but apparently he didn't have a motorsailing cone up).

Could not see the sailboat but saw it did not follow Colregs..

Speaks volumes..

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again with the pathetic deflection - victim blaming. Really?!?!

We can only go by what information is available, and an application of logical reasoning - no gymnastics involved. All of my assumptions are realistic.
You haven't offered a logical rebuttal to any part of my assessment, 'cause you have nothing. So you revert to juvenile accusations of victim-blaming.
Sad.

Not sure where you are getting your figures, but go back and read post 12. Regardless of what was happening 20 or 30 minutes earlier, when the sailboat probably wrongly assumed the powerboat saw them and would change course, if a sailboat changes course, a 180, at the last moment and gets hit, the powerboat was going too close and going too fast, even if someone HAD BEEN keeping watch AND could turn off the AP, which apparently, so far as we know, was not the case. It sounds like the sailboat certainly saw them bearing down and panicked at the last moment, misjudging which way the powerboat was going.
Resorting to defending your case with words like "juvenile" and "pathetic" against the "victim-blaming" does not strengthen your position that the sailboat could have, should have, and was required to have, done more to avoid this collision, IMO, as we know the facts so far.

[sailormed]

Further press info:

https://sparkchronicles.com/damaged-...clusive-video/

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Not sure where you are getting your figures, but go back and read post 12. Regardless of what was happening 20 or 30 minutes earlier, when the sailboat probably wrongly assumed the powerboat saw them and would change course, if a sailboat changes course, a 180, at the last moment and gets hit, the powerboat was going too close and going too fast, even if someone HAD BEEN keeping watch AND could turn off the AP, which apparently, so far as we know, was not the case. It sounds like the sailboat certainly saw them bearing down and panicked at the last moment, misjudging which way the powerboat was going.
Resorting to defending your case with words like "juvenile" and "pathetic" against the "victim-blaming" does not strengthen your position that the sailboat could have, should have, and was required to have, done more to avoid this collision, IMO, as we know the facts so far.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of post 12, perhaps you can add some context to your point?
I have said from the beginning that the powerboat carried blame - we haven't fully discussed that blame, but apparently there was a poor or no lookout kept, possibly they did not give way as required, and it certainly appears to be more than a little breaking of Rule 2. From what we know, I think you can only say that the powerboat was going too fast or too close. In open water, clear vis, apparently sparse traffic, that speed in and of itself, is not dangerous.
Maybe you can go read my post #131 - then we can discuss where I "got my figures."
The Rules are designed to work if one of the two vessels takes action. Collisions happen, for the most part, when there are failures to apply the Rules on both vessels.
If you want to challenge my views, or share your analysis of the collision, I welcome it. It makes for a better, more enlightening discussion. Characterizing it as "victim-blaming" does not, and it is pathetic and juvenile.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again with the pathetic deflection - victim blaming. Really?!?!

We can only go by what information is available, and an application of logical reasoning - no gymnastics involved. All of my assumptions are realistic.
You haven't offered a logical rebuttal to any part of my assessment, 'cause you have nothing. So you revert to juvenile accusations of victim-blaming.
Sad.

Lodesman, your contention that the sailboat should reasonably have done more is unrealistic.

One piece of information which we have is: "mainsail up" not "sails up".

Honestly, sailing with only a mainsail does not imply going fast, and especially when going fast itself is only 6 knots for most sailboats.

So we can visualize this: a slowly moving sailboat with passengers presumably relaxing on a nice day, lazing around the cockpit chatting, and one person on the helm steering and watching where he/she is going. This is not the bridge of an ocean going commercial vessel with officer of the deck, helm person steering, and lookouts posted on all corners nor do we think it normal or required for it to have been operated in that way. They needed to look where they were going and not run into anything.

Using electronic aids they might have detected the oncoming powerboat at over five miles, maybe even 10. Visually, a white dot on the horizon... you don't think much about it, can't even tell if it is coming towards you, it's just there as are probably are a few other white dots on the horizon.

At five miles you start to pay more attention, it's coming towards you and you don't need a compass to see that its bearing is not changing much. Like was proposed above, the first reaction is: "Surely they see us?". And you watch it and decide, "No, they are still coming!"

Now it's a very short amount of time until a collision would occur. You have to leap into action, (assuming someone in command gives the right orders), get the engine running, put it into gear and change direction, hopefully the right way which is no sure thing in a situation like that because nobody is prepared for or practices it. ("Ok class, let's now practice what we'd do if we suddenly realize a powerboat about to run over us.")

But you, Lodesman, must accept that whatever they do it isn't going to amount to much. Whatever speed they were going it is going to be slower after they suddenly turn to a new direction and the sailboat is going to gain speed slowly. Speeding up with the engine is useless, they are not going to accelerate at all. Stopping won't do it, then they are just sitting ducks.

And we're expecting the helm's person to have lightning reflexes and make a good decision when adrenalin is flowing and time is very short. We're not talking about Top Gun fighter pilot reflexes here.

The only thing they could have done is take action much sooner, meaning get out of the way of the powerboat even while it had sufficient time to take action itself, which seems contrary to Colregs due to the obligation to "stand on".

I think placing much, if any, responsibility on the sailboat is pretty much a stretch too far. They were the victims, and you are blaming them.

Now let me tell you of an incident on a sailboat I was in command of many years ago, before AIS, and we didn't have radar. A 41 ft racing sloop, (not my own) with myself and six adult students on a sailing class at night in Puget Sound. I was not on the helm, I was in the cockpit. We had a genoa up and had just completed a tack onto starboard which was required due to the left turn of the passage we were following.

We did not see the ship overtaking us from astern towards whose path we'd just turned. There was a single long blast of a horn and I ducked my head around the genoa and saw the ship coming, quite close and looking to me like it would pass astern of us (I thought we were nearly on its bow and almost about to cross ahead of it). I yelled at the helm person to "turn left!!" which was wrong because the ship was itself already in a left turn. I had judged its path incorrectly, it was not passing astern of us, we were on a parallel course with it at a distance of probably less than 50 feet.

The person on the helm of our sailboat froze and did not turn. The ship passed on our left side close enough so that, looking upward, I saw part of the ship directly overhead. If we had turned left as I ordered we'd have turned right into its path.

Of course I should have seen the ship earlier but we were in our spots with our heads down working the sails and winches. If we had seen it we would not have tacked towards it, and, it was my fault for making the wrong call, I admit all of that, but I'm telling this story it is to illustrate that even while sailing with a full crew, all awake and alert, and a knowledgeable skipper, wrong decisions can be made when you are about to be run down by a ship and holding us responsible would have been, as in the case of the "deadly accident", a big stretch.

Saying that we should not sail where a powered vessel might be heading is tantamount to asking us to "keep out of its way". It's the powered vessel who should keep out of the way of a sailing vessel and the the sailing vessel should be expected to make normal maneuvers, such as tacking when that is the normal maneuver that would be expected sailing in that place at that time.

Blaming the sailing boat for not keeping out of the way or not acting sooner, or acting incorrectly at the last minute, is blaming the victim as Lake Effect says.