Legal nav lights on the Mac?

[Retcoastie]

Where you find that light for $7 ???

[Dimitri-2000X-Tampa]

Where you find that light for $7 ???

http://us.binnacle.com/product_info.php ... ts_id=1406

[K9Kampers]

I thought this to be the best thread to add this:

On a forum for a local lake, Winnipesaukee, this case was refered to during a discussion about a recent incident in which a powerboat hit an unlighted kayak at night.

Is anyone familiar with this case?... It refers to a Mac 26X on Lake Okanagan in British Columbia...

Airwaves
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 430 Case law is what you want to look at here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I figured it’s been a while so I’ll “weigh” in on this one.

The ultimate cause of the accident, assuming the facts presented are accurate, was that the kayaker(s) that were struck were not showing the required lighting configuration and are therefore completely to blame for the accident.

Navigation laws are similar in the US and Canada, so without digging too deeply looking for case law on this topic I found a similar case (underway powerboat strikes an unlighted vessel at night). The case was decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I am sure anyone who wishes will be able to find other such accidents to compare it with.

Collision – Small Vessels – Improper lighting – Liability
Thatcher v Schell, 2005 BCSC 1121
This case involved a collision on Okanagan Lake between a 26' sailboat operating under power and a 19' motorboat. The collision occurred at dusk. Both vessels were destroyed and the occupants of each were injured. The owner of the sailboat alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the other vessel in proceeding at an excessive speed and failing to maintain a proper lookout. The owner of the motorboat argued that the collision was caused by the negligence of the sailboat in failing to have the proper running lights and in turning to port immediately before the collision instead of to starboard as required by the collision regulations. It was uncontested that the driver of the motorboat did not see the sailboat until immediately before the collision and took no steps to avoid the collision. After reviewing all of the evidence the Judge found as a fact that the sailboat was not properly lit and that this was the cause of the collision. The owner/operator of the sailboat was therefore held to be completely at fault.

So unless there is NH case law to the contrary it stands to reason the kayaker is the liable party.

Kudos to Sue15 and her crew for taking quick action preventing this from becoming much much worse. It's unfortunate that they are going to suffer emotionally because of the bonehead move of a couple of kayakers!
__________________

and continues...

Gavia immer
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navigation laws are similar in the US and Canada, so without digging too deeply looking for case law on this topic I found a similar case (underway powerboat strikes an unlighted vessel at night). The case was decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I am sure anyone who wishes will be able to find other such accidents to compare it with.

Three witnesses said that the (sailboat's) lights were on, but the judge found the standard USCG-minimum navigation lights on the 26X MacGregor sailboat were inadequate, based on one different witness account.

The judge was faulted for her limited knowledge of boating terms and hardware. The case is being appealed.

No one was able to pinpoint the speed of the 19' speedboat that struck it, but the sailboat was cut in half. There are probably many cases better than this one to use as an example.

[eric3a]

..

[Frank C]

. . . Colregs say that non powered vessels less than 7 meters in length are allowed to only have a white flashlight shown in time to prevent a collision.

I suppose that could absolve the kayak, but the 26X is 7+ meters.
(and I guess a big outboard on a 26X would also disqualify it.)

. . . but the judge found the standard USCG-minimum navigation lights
on the 26X MacGregor sailboat were inadequate . . .

Hmmm ... who said, "Product recall?"

[eric3a]

..

[K9Kampers]

The absolute best to be seen at night in a sailboat is to flash a powerful light up your sails. You will be visible for miles.

I've been wondering about this idea. On the one hand, being more visible is safer, it sounds like a good practice.

On the other hand, I can picture a light source being applied to the sails being mistaken for a masthead light by an approaching boat. The display of a masthead light, in addition to bow / side red / green & stern lights indicates a vessel under power. The sailboat captain understands that he has the right-of-way because he is under sail. The approaching boater, thinking he is seeing a powerboat, would presumably react accordingly, which is different than if he thought he were approaching a sailboat.

Surely, light reflected off a sail is different than light straight from a bulb, but if it is enough to cause an approaching boat to mis-interpret, (assuming they know what to look for in the first place), then is it really safer?

Nightime Navigation

[eric3a]

..

[K9Kampers]

Eric - Thanks for clarifying. The point of lighting the sail for a few seconds vs. maintaining a continuously lit sail makes this practice more reasonable.

[albion]

I wonder why Roger the dodger never puts an anchor light on the Macs.When I called MacGregor, they told me they leave it to the dealer. I told them its much easier if they put a wire down the mast at the factory, instead of the dealer or customer trying to drill through the mast.

[K9Kampers]

I have since found and read the entire legal record that I refered to above. My observations:

The person who posted this article on the Winnipesaukee Forum has incorrectly identified the sailboat as a MacGregor 26X. The legal record only identifies it as a MacGregor 26, and further describes it as having a tiller. A minor point overall.

The point of the issue: whether or not the sailboat operating under motorized power had proper (if at all) lighting. It was decided that it did not. It either had no stern light or had no lights displayed at all, depending on which witnesses the judge believed or discounted. Nothing was mentioned of a masthead light. The sailboat captain did indeed react incorrectly while under power, which caused the collision.

The judge cites about the Mac bow lights: "But those lights are small, and are not sufficient to alert oncoming boats in dark conditions." Just how different are the lights on the Mac from the lights on the other boat, a 19' Silverline?

The legal record:

Thatcher v. Schell

[Tony D-26X_SusieQ]

To set the record straight. Mr Thachers boat was a "McGregor" 26 foot sailboat and not a Macgregor 26 foot sailboat. Two different manufacturers.

[Moe]

When using a flashlight to light up the sails, as I did when I was a kid crossing the ICW, there's a temptation to look up and see where you're shining the flashlight on the sail. Don't. While not exactly the equivalent of looking at a flashbulb, it really nuked my night vision for several minutes. Kind of scary.

--
Moe

[eric3a]

..

[K9Kampers]

Tony D -

Don't be misled by the misspelling and think that there are two different manufacturers of the same name, spelled one letter off, that make identical boats. The internet is loaded with misspellings of the MacGregor name. Interestingly, in the Canadian judge's summary, she dropped the "a", as did the plaintiffs (Canadian) son-in-law, as he talked about the case at Catalinaowners.com, despite being corrected on the spelling.

Regardless, I think the case here is less about the manufacturer, than about captains' responsibility. The sailboat captain took a course of action opposite the colregs, that resulted in a collision. He apparently never indicated why that course of action was prudent. Confusing the issue after-the-fact, is (one of-) the judge's opinion that the manufacturer installed, USCG-approved nav lights were inadequate.

More so, the SIL to the plantiff tried to get MacGregor legally/financially involved on their appeal of the case because he thought that Mac stood to gain / lose more on the good / bad PR. Apparently, MacGregor never called him back. The appeal was dropped because even if the plantiff could get the decision overturned, they would be out even more financially because their insurer dropped them and the defendants had no insurance.