Announcements
New Discussions
Hull pressurizing
by DaleYoung. 06/14/22 08:16 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195308
11/03/09 10:51 PM
11/03/09 10:51 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,884
Detroit, MI
mbounds Offline
Pooh-Bah
mbounds  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,884
Detroit, MI
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Eric

I don't believe that there is any way you can force a sailor to appear at a protest hearing and present a case.

...even in the case of major damage.



True, but that does not prevent the hearing from proceding:
Quote
63.3 Right to Be Present
(a) The parties to the hearing, or a representative of each, have the right to be present throughout the hearing of all the evidence. When a protest claims a breach of a rule of Part 2, 3 or 4, the representatives of boats shall have been on board at the time of the incident, unless there is good reason for the protest committee to rule otherwise. Any witness, other than a member of the protest committee, shall be excluded except when giving evidence.
(b) If a party to the hearing of a protest or request for redress does not come to the hearing, the protest committee may nevertheless decide the protest or request. If the party was unavoidably absent, the committee may reopen the hearing.

(emphasis mine)

-- Have You Seen This? --
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Isotope235] #195310
11/03/09 11:12 PM
11/03/09 11:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
T
TeamTeets Offline
enthusiast
TeamTeets  Offline
enthusiast
T

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
<sorry, didn't get the quoting right... this was in reply to Eric's insurance company rationality post>
It may be that some carriers understand maritime law and will give some weight to the protest... but I have never seen that. I have seen ODNR officers explicitly tell two parties that his report based on state law was all that was relevant in an incident report (they agreed who was at fault, the officer just happened to walk by as they were pulling their damaged boats on the beach). I have had insurance companies require a police/sheriff report prior to paying damages.

BTW, I believe I read somewhere that a recent change was passed such that COLREGS do not apply between racing boats. Unfortunately, I doubt that all state and local laws follow the same policy.

Last edited by TeamTeets; 11/03/09 11:15 PM.

Mike, Ohio
Former H16, H18, N20, N17, M4.3
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: TeamTeets] #195311
11/03/09 11:40 PM
11/03/09 11:40 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
T
TeamTeets Offline
enthusiast
TeamTeets  Offline
enthusiast
T

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
Here is a relevant article... pointing out that Eric is probably legally correct: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/ It is an older article but I assume the recent colreg change helps clarify that.

Also for Canadian sailors: http://www.sailing.ca/files/racing/regatta_organization/Collisionsfinal12_31_07.pdf

So, given my experience with multiple insurance companies, and local law enforcement, and the number of discussion threads and articles... this is clearly not clear smile


Mike, Ohio
Former H16, H18, N20, N17, M4.3
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Isotope235] #195312
11/03/09 11:41 PM
11/03/09 11:41 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Quote
Now, I don't claim that insurance companies behave rationally, but since you agree that the rules determine liability, they should honor that.


This is the heart of the matter. The question to ask your insurance provider is not... do you cover me while racing? ...

But, do you use the RRS to decide claims?

Windy....Organizing Authorities are behaving stupidly when they ask for liability insurance proof and or coverage. See this doc for info
http://www.sailregattas.com/crac/uploads/Insurance%20and%20Cat%20Racing.pdf

In doing so... they simply open the door for you to include them in the dispute between you and the other guy. As you have experienced, they usually don't have any insurance information OR interest in getting involved. They will have heartburn in even handing you a copy of the individuals entry form should he refuse to give you contact information.

Now what they HAVE promised you is that they will appoint a protest committee (Its part of the statement in the NOR that this regatta follows the RRS statement and any other rules in the NOR. If you file the protest they have to hear it. If they don't you appeal to the regional authority of US Sailing who can take action against the OA for not doing their job.

So assuming you have a PC hearing and facts found and decision made...
What are your options. 1) report this PC facts found and findings info and your story to your insurance company and let them deal with the problem. After all, It's what you paid them for.

2) Take the guy to small claims court.
However, in doing so, you will violate rule three where you agreed to NOT resort to any court of law or tribunal.

Now... the real crux of your problem is responsibility and how this get's enforced.
It seems to me that you need to request the PC file a gross misconduct charge against the individual.
Rule 69.1 f allows you to file the protest with the OA well down the road when this damage /responsibility issue comes to a head. The OA will have to form a new protest committee to hear your misconduct charge, bad sportsmanship and or refusing to be responsible for his actions on the race course charge.

Should the PC find such misconduct, they will take action appropriate to the event (dsq's) and they have to send the report on the individual to US Sailing. (69.1 b 2 c)

US Sailing could then investigate further and suspend or ban the sailor from all further competition. Yacht Clubs/OA's that allow this individual to compete would then be held responsible and other sailors who compete at this same YC would also suffer penalties and not be allowed to compete.


crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195316
11/04/09 12:02 AM
11/04/09 12:02 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
T
TeamTeets Offline
enthusiast
TeamTeets  Offline
enthusiast
T

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 215
Ohio
An example from Ohio Revised Code on requirements for notifying ODNR. It does state though that it is not for use in liability (last sentence).

"In the case of collision, accident, or other casualty involving a vessel, the operator thereof, if the collision, accident, or other casualty results in loss of life, personal injury requiring medical treatment beyond first aid, or damage to property in excess of five hundred dollars, shall file with the chief of the division of watercraft a full description of the collision, accident, or other casualty on a form prescribed by the chief. The report so filed shall be used for statistical purposes only and shall not be admissible for any purpose in any civil, criminal, or administrative action at law."

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: TeamTeets] #195318
11/04/09 12:08 AM
11/04/09 12:08 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Hi Mike

Sorry, posts crossed in the ether... Yes, I agree with you about how misunderstood the process is by sailors.

I agree with your point about insurance doing their own thing (colregs vers RRS) If they want a police report... then the RRS are irrelevant because you are most certainly being judged under the colregs.... and you should know this when you buy the policy.

Yes... no matter how clear the US Prescriptions can be that that the PC does not decide liability issues.... sailors don't get it.

My post to Windy presents his options as I understand the system.

I don't think you can call the police for a collision on the race course after you agree to rule three of the RRS.

The standard used.... responsible under the RRS is problematic. For instance, your insurance company uses the colregs to assign liability and not the RRS. For the sake of argument, the other sailor decides that the insurance companies decision that he was 50% responsible under the colregs is unacceptable. He holds you responsible for the damage under the RRS and wants the money from you for his 50% of the judgment ....

It's going to get ugly ...

The citation you give that would suggest that the court follow the RRS and not colregs suffers because EACH STINKING STATE has their own liablity laws and laws on waivers etc.

So, again we agree... it's simply not clear and varies state to state.


IMO, the concept of "responsible" extends no further then my insurance company. Moreover, my agreement to be responsible suggests that I must purchase insurance that honors the RRS standard... choosing to purchase insurance that only covers me under colregs would be irresponsible on my part. (Your mileage may vary)

Last edited by Mark Schneider; 11/04/09 12:22 AM.

crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195321
11/04/09 02:38 AM
11/04/09 02:38 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 266
UK
Cheshirecatman Offline
enthusiast
Cheshirecatman  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 266
UK
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
[
2) Take the guy to small claims court.
However, in doing so, you will violate rule three where you agreed to NOT resort to any court of law or tribunal.



This applies to rulings governing the racing under the juristiction of the race committee/MNA under RRS. They do not have the authority to rule over the actions/legal responsibilities of an individual. Can you imagine, one guy murders a port tacker, but because they were racing the RC/MNA deal with it under unsportsmanlike conduct!

What is important here is that the competitors are aware of the 'applicable navigation rules'. This is not aways clear. Port areas often have more specific navigation rules. Lakes/inland waterways could be anything (COLREGS = sea.) RRS do not conflict with COLREGS merely provide more detailed prescriptions for racing.

One thing I have not seen mentioned is that I was advised the insurance company of the defendant could limit their liability in terms of 'damage compensation' to a scale used for International shipping. This is based on tonnage, and if used for lightweight racing cats is a pittance.

Cheshirecatman

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195332
11/04/09 08:53 AM
11/04/09 08:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
I don't believe that there is any way you can force a sailor to appear at a protest hearing and present a case.

As Mike pointed out, RRS 63.3(b) allows the hearing to proceed even if a party does not attend. If a competitor refuses to attend a Rule 69 hearing, the committee may conduct it anyway, but probably should pass the information to the national authority (under RRS 69.1(e)) instead.

Regards,
Eric

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195333
11/04/09 09:26 AM
11/04/09 09:26 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
2) Take the guy to small claims court.
However, in doing so, you will violate rule three where you agreed to NOT resort to any court of law or tribunal.

I disagree. As I read RRS 3(c):
Quote
with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal.

It applies to RRS 3(b):
Quote
to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and

Which means that competitors (and boat owners) agree to use the protest and appeal process set out under the rules (rather than court) to adjudicate rules infractions, and to abide by their outcomes.

I've heard that in some countries, protest committees do award damages - but that is not so in the US. US Sailing Prescription 68(b) states:
Quote
A protest committee shall find facts and make decisions only in compliance with the rules. No protest committee or US SAILING appeal authority shall adjudicate any claim for damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.


So, you can't sue someone for breaking rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks). You have to protest them. You can, however, sue them for damages arising from damage or injury caused by a collision where they broke rule 10.

Quote
It seems to me that you need to request the PC file a gross misconduct charge against the individual.

Well, I don't think that simply refusing to settle out of court rises (or should it be "sinks"?) to the level of "gross misconduct". I believe you'd have a hard time convincing a protest committee to open a hearing under RRS 69. Most likely, they'd tell you that awards for damages are the jurisdiction of the courts and you should sue.

Sincerely,
Eric

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195337
11/04/09 09:59 AM
11/04/09 09:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
... my agreement to be responsible suggests that I must purchase insurance that honors the RRS standard... choosing to purchase insurance that only covers me under colregs would be irresponsible on my part.

Excellent point!

I'm going to step a little outside my area of expertise here for a moment. When you race in the US under the Racing Rules of Sailing, you enter into a legally binding contract in which you agree to be responsible for damages according to the application of the rules. You are personally liable for those damages. When you buy insurance, you are contracting with somebody else to pay the expense of the damages. If you buy insurance that doesn't cover you under the RRS contract, then you are mis-insured and potentially uninsured. Your insurance carrier may refuse to pay in full, but that doesn't change your liability. You are simply left to pay the balance out of pocket (should the other party refuse a settlement). If you are 100% at fault under the rules, then you are 100% responsible for damages - and that's how a court of law should rule.

Ok, I'm going to try to stick to the rules, and not the law from now on.

Regards,
Eric

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Cheshirecatman] #195338
11/04/09 10:16 AM
11/04/09 10:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Cheshirecatman
What is important here is that the competitors are aware of the 'applicable navigation rules'. This is not aways clear. Port areas often have more specific navigation rules. Lakes/inland waterways could be anything (COLREGS = sea.) RRS do not conflict with COLREGS merely provide more detailed prescriptions for racing.

I agree that sailors should be aware of government right-of-way regulations. They apply when the Racing Rules of Sailing do not (e.g. when going to and from the racing area, and with boat(s) in the area that are not racing). However, the RRS do conflict with the COLREGS (they are often similar, but are not the same). It's important to realize that when the RRS apply, COLREGS do not.

Quote
One thing I have not seen mentioned is that I was advised the insurance company of the defendant could limit their liability in terms of 'damage compensation' to a scale used for International shipping. This is based on tonnage, and if used for lightweight racing cats is a pittance.

I don't believe that argument will hold up. Sailboat racing is not international shipping. I'd mistrust any insurance agent that told me my liability was limited by weight.

Sincerely,
Eric

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Isotope235] #195345
11/04/09 10:34 AM
11/04/09 10:34 AM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
WindyHillF20 Offline OP
addict
WindyHillF20  Offline OP
addict

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
This is excellent discussion. I am not concerned over my past experiences, I have learned from them and will not be caught with my pants down again. At this point I have enough knowledge of the rules to defend and protect myself. However, when I started racing I did not know the rules well. In my first accident I had no idea what to do and no one bothered to talk with me or help me. My wife overheard the other skipper talking with another competitor about filing a protest to get some insurance money. I'm the new guy, my boat is destroyed, my wife was nearly seriously injured and no one from the RC even came to see if we were ok. Much less offer any guidance on what to do next. I remember asking another participant what should be done and his statement was " if you were on port you better have insurance".
It would seem to me that the first thing a RC would do when a collision occurs is speak with both partys and help them with a protest or whatever else should be done. This collision had to be reported to local authorities as well. My insurance company paid the other sailors claim as they stated the dollar amount wasn't sufficient to take him to court to disprove the race committees findings.

It would appear that you are on your own if you choose to enter a race. If your boat gets damaged and the other skipper denies his liability you have no recourse other than small claims court. Yet every race I have entered required me to sign an entry stating I have proper insurance, whether I do or not. My insurance will pay for the damage regardless how it occurs but its still not right! When the rules are not enforced it opens the door for dishonest people. Like it or not, if you don't follow the rules you are dishonest!

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: TeamTeets] #195348
11/04/09 11:52 AM
11/04/09 11:52 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,969
B
brucat Offline
Carpal Tunnel
brucat  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
B

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,969
Earlier I said this: "Whether or not a protest is determined to be valid can be based on a number of things, including procedures for notification, etc."

I stand by this statement, as it can be true, sometimes PCs (and OAs) act strangely. In addition, there are still lots of events that ADD protest requirements (notify RC at the end of a race, etc.), raising the bar even higher for protest validity.

However, as Eric and Matt pointed out, there are plenty of provisions in the RRS to allow (require) PCs to hear and decide protests, even if some validity requirements are not met. In my opinion, and many others here agree, this is very important, we need to get away from the old days when the first thing a PC did was sit down and find a reason to chuck the protest altogether. I see this happening less and less at the events I attend, so it's definitely a good trend.

In any event, lots of good posts here. In the case of the original post of this thread, the victim probably has a good court case against not only the offending sailor, but potentially against the OA. Especially here in the lawyer-intense US...

Mike

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: WindyHillF20] #195349
11/04/09 11:56 AM
11/04/09 11:56 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Quote
" if you were on port you better have insurance".


Sailors assume that this issue is black and white. If on starboard... they are always in the right.

Actually, just because you violated a rule... does not mean that you will be crushed in a collision and must pay for everything.

The starboard boat could also be dsq'd for failing to avoid the collision. Thus your insurance company could easily decide responsiblity is 51% vs 49 %. or even decide 100% for starboard boats liability.



crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Isotope235] #195352
11/04/09 12:20 PM
11/04/09 12:20 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 266
UK
Cheshirecatman Offline
enthusiast
Cheshirecatman  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 266
UK
Originally Posted by Isotope42
Originally Posted by Cheshirecatman
What is important here is that the competitors are aware of the 'applicable navigation rules'. This is not aways clear. Port areas often have more specific navigation rules. Lakes/inland waterways could be anything (COLREGS = sea.) RRS do not conflict with COLREGS merely provide more detailed prescriptions for racing.

I agree that sailors should be aware of government right-of-way regulations. They apply when the Racing Rules of Sailing do not (e.g. when going to and from the racing area, and with boat(s) in the area that are not racing). However, the RRS do conflict with the COLREGS (they are often similar, but are not the same). It's important to realize that when the RRS apply, COLREGS do not.

Quote
One thing I have not seen mentioned is that I was advised the insurance company of the defendant could limit their liability in terms of 'damage compensation' to a scale used for International shipping. This is based on tonnage, and if used for lightweight racing cats is a pittance.

I don't believe that argument will hold up. Sailboat racing is not international shipping. I'd mistrust any insurance agent that told me my liability was limited by weight.

Sincerely,
Eric


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!

It is not your liability that is limited by weight, but a compensation scale that could be used in argueing the value of any settlement by the at-fault party. In practise we normally advise our insurers to act as they cover ourselves and sometimes we just have have to take the excess(deductable)and future premium hit just to be pragmatic.

Cheshirecatman

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195353
11/04/09 12:28 PM
11/04/09 12:28 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
WindyHillF20 Offline OP
addict
WindyHillF20  Offline OP
addict

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
And that is where it gets sticky. Without a protest hearing it is very hard to prove one way or the other. The inexperienced racer is really left to defend themselves with limited knowledge of how to do it. If its not the responsibility of the organizing group to assist with the proper protest procedure then who is responsible? The uninformed newbie?

I'm not about starting protests for the sake of protests but when a boat is damaged there must be a proper procedure for placing liability. It should be handled right then and there and both parties should be treated equally. If insurance is required to play all competitors must have some form of coverage, at a minimum liability. When an accident occurs the details should be recorded, a protest heard, fault assigned and then it goes to the insurance company for payment. Either a separate liability policy or homeowners liability coverage must be enforced to protect the competitors. I have enough to think about on the race course, I certainly don't want to be worrying about who has insurance and who does not in tight quarters at the line or rounding a mark!

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195356
11/04/09 12:46 PM
11/04/09 12:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Quote
So, you can't sue someone for breaking rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks). You have to protest them. You can, however, sue them for damages arising from damage or injury caused by a collision where they broke rule 10.


I agree... You can't walk off the water, call the police, and file charges. You agreed to the process of a PC hearing etc. Your civil process can not be taken away in the US... details vary state to state.

That was my point.... don't get off the water and call the police.

Quote

Quote:
It seems to me that you need to request the PC file a gross misconduct charge against the individual.

Well, I don't think that simply refusing to settle out of court rises (or should it be "sinks"?) to the level of "gross misconduct". I believe you'd have a hard time convincing a protest committee to open a hearing under RRS 69. Most likely, they'd tell you that awards for damages are the jurisdiction of the courts and you should sue.


Sorry, I think you have your head in the sand. I agree that the courts are where the issues of dollars are sorted out. But Windy is pointing the finger at the OA and PC for NOT dealing with larger issue of responsibility and how it is dealt with in the framework of the sport.

Yes,PC have training to collect the facts and evaluate the rules and render a decision on the RRS. BUT they also need judgment to address the other issues of responsibility and sportsmanship that they are tasked with.
Its the UGLY HALF of the RULES ADMINISTRATION.

Competitors have an expectation for the game spelled out by the contract that they
signed up for. The OA and PC simply CANNOT wash their hands of this kind of responsibility/sportsmanship dispute after they manage the rules issue.

Look at Windy's bottom line. He felt that the sports administration did not hold up their part of the deal. He was on his own with no recourse...I am surprised he keeps racing in such a dysfunctional organization.

The integrity of the sport of sailing depends on self policing backed up by race administration. The PC has two jobs... rules application and responsibility/sportsmanship enforcement redress.



crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Cheshirecatman] #195361
11/04/09 01:18 PM
11/04/09 01:18 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
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

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195363
11/04/09 01:50 PM
11/04/09 01:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
WindyHillF20 Offline OP
addict
WindyHillF20  Offline OP
addict

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 440
Graham, NC
This is how I thought it should work but here in the land of EMSA it doesn't. I specifically avoid one of the largest races in the SE because of this very issue. I'm not trying to call anyone out either, I appreciate the efforts of the volunteers that make my racing possible. But when something happens, turning the other way is wrong and apparently I'm not the only one that thinks this way. I am not a huge racer but do like it every now and then.

My current mindset is to avoid getting in any situation that might turn out poorly. I don't ask for rights where I could or crowd in at the line or marks, its not worth the risk and hassle.

Re: Continued liability discussion from Area D thread [Re: Mark Schneider] #195370
11/04/09 02:57 PM
11/04/09 02:57 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Sorry, I think you have your head in the sand.

Can you be more specific? What issue(s) do you feel I'm refusing to see? I'm trying to be helpful and responsive, so please let me know what you think I've left unaddressed.

Quote
Windy is pointing the finger at the OA and PC for NOT dealing with larger issue of responsibility and how it is dealt with in the framework of the sport.

I'm not going to draw conclusions on specific incidents here. I have no personal knowledge of what transpired that day and it would be wrong to make assumptions and place blame based on what has been written so far. Can race committee (and protest committee) be helpful? Yes. Can they be polite and friendly? Yes. Can they show concern for the safety and wellbeing of the competitors? Yes. Should they? I believe so.

Quote
PC have training to collect the facts and evaluate the rules and render a decision on the RRS. BUT they also need judgment to address the other issues of responsibility and sportsmanship that they are tasked with.

I agree that the protest committee needs to use good judgement. I don't see anybody here disputing that.

Quote
Competitors have an expectation for the game spelled out by the contract that they
signed up for. The OA and PC simply CANNOT wash their hands of this kind of responsibility/sportsmanship dispute after they manage the rules issue.

Who said anything about "washing their hands"? I've been quite firm on the necessity of holding a protest hearing whenever damage or injury occurs. Even if there is no disupte about fault, the hearing yields a documented application of the rules from a (presumably) authoritative source regarding the incident -- which is needed for any later claim for damages.

The adjudication of damages is the jurisdiction of the courts. Protest committee finds facts and applies the rules, but does not get involved in monetary claims (at least in the US). Just because sailors seek damages in court, or defend themselves against these claims does not in any way imply poor sportsmanship. They're doing exacty what the US SAILING Prescriptions to rule 68 tell them to do.

Picture this scenerio: Sailors A and B collide while racing and A's boat is damaged. A protests and B is disqualified by the protest committee. A says to B "you owe me X dollars for the damage". B replies "That's more than I think is fair, even if I were completely to blame which I don't believe. I'll give you Y dollars, but if you want more, you'll have to sue me." So, A takes B to court. Has either one acted in an unsportsmanlike manner? I don't think so. If, absent any other evidence, A went back to protest committee and requested B be punished for a "Gross Breach of Sportsmanship" just because he refused to meet A's demand, then I think PC would (and should) refer A to the courts. I think it takes a lot more than a disagreement over cost to constitute gross misconduct. Now, if B (in front of witnesses) said "**** you *******, I broke the rules but there's no way I'm ever going to give you a ******* dime. I'll keep you tied up in court forever. If you ever want to race again you'll have to fix it yourself and you'd better stay away from me or I'll hit you even harder next time.", then that's an entirely different matter. In that scenerio, A should take the witnesses to PC, protest B under Rule 2, and request that the committee call a hearing under rule 69 (as well as sue).

Quote
Look at Windy's bottom line. He felt that the sports administration did not hold up their part of the deal. He was on his own with no recourse...I am surprised he keeps racing in such a dysfunctional organization.

I'm glad WindyHillF20 is still sailing. A negative experience such as he described would drive most people away from the sport.

Quote
The integrity of the sport of sailing depends on self policing backed up by race administration. The PC has two jobs... rules application and responsibility/sportsmanship enforcement redress.

The integrity of the sport of sailing depends primarily on self-policing by the competitors ourselves. We (the sailors) should not expect RC or PC to step in and enforce rules if we do not. Be careful when you point the finger of blame, because it can wind up pointing right back at us. In the situation WindyHillF20 described, did any of the other sailors come over, ask how they were doing, and give advice about what to do next? I don't want to see incidents like his, but if I do, I hope that I'll go offer assistance whether I'm representing the organizing authority, race committee, protest committee, or just sailing myself.

Sincerely,
Eric

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 25 guests, and 82 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
toomanyhulls, madina9900, johngava, badcatsailor, wehnet
8119 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,397
Posts267,040
Members8,119
Most Online1,650
Sep 10th, 2019
--Advertisement--
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1