Originally Posted by Isotope42
Originally Posted by Cheshirecatman
I would love to see you try to argue in court that COLREGS no longer apply because a boat is racing. COLREGS are law,RRS is a sporting code!

Not being a lawyer, I wouldn't argue it in US court (all my discussion so far being limited to the US). If I had to make a legal argument, I'd be sure to cite Juno srl v. The Endeavour, 58 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995), in which the US First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:
Quote
...nothing in their <the COLREGS> history indicates that they were meant to regulate voluntary private sports activity in which the participants have waived their application and in which no interference with non-participating maritime traffic is implicated.

and
Quote
Insistence on blind application of COLREGS ... is not only unsupported by any historical imperative in this legislation and contrary to the weight of the sparse relevant authority, it is logically unsound.

The court held that yacht racing damages be based on a determination of fault by application of the International Yacht Racing Rules, which is now called the Racing Rules of Sailing.

TeamTeets posted a link earlier in this thread to a scuttlebutt article discussing this case (thanks Mike for researching your posts by the way). I've looked for the "recent COLREGS change" that has been mentioned, but was not successful in finding it. I'd appreciate a reference if anybody has one. I did come across a piece of Australian legislation that specifically states that the RRS supercedes the COLREGS, but that's AU, not US.

Sincerely,
Eric


The case you cite only proves my point about the COLREGS(IRPCAS).

After a lively and mostly unnecessary round of discovery, the matter went to trial on the admiralty side of the bench. The district court found that because the IYRRs are the rules of a private racing organization, they "do not and cannot preempt the application of the COLREGS which have been adopted by treaty to govern worldwide." Juno, 865 F.Supp. at 17. The court thus ignored the findings of the International Jury and concluded that, under COLREGS Rule 13, 33 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 1602,4 CHARLES JOURDAN was an overtaking vessel required to keep clear of ENDEAVOUR. Pursuant to the "Pennsylvania Rule"5 the CHARLES JOURDAN was presumed at fault. Nevertheless, the court found that, under COLREGS Rule 8, 33 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 1602,6 the ENDEAVOUR's failure to take action to avoid the collision "was a significant cause of the accident," and found it 40% at fault. Juno, 865 F.Supp. at 18.

Cheshirecatman