CASE 10

Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Obstruction

When two boats make contact, both may be exonerated when a third boat that broke a rule caused the incident.

Summary of the Facts
As P approached the mud flats, she tacked onto port. M, on starboard tack, immediately hailed and then hailed again when one hull length away, since it was apparent that P was trying to cross ahead, and collision would be inevitable. When there was no response to her hails, M tacked, hailing S as she was going about. S tried to respond but there was contact. P retired. S protested M under rule 10. The protest committee, commenting that M had sufficient time to take avoiding action to keep clear of both P and S, disqualified M under rule 14.
M appealed, holding that the protest committee erred in suggesting that she, a right-of-way boat, was obliged to keep clear of P. Furthermore, after her second hail, had she borne away and then P finally responded by tacking, contact was likely. M also alleged that S had failed to carry out her obligation under rule 19.

Decision
Appeal upheld. P, which properly retired, broke rule 10. She caused the problem and M, in the circumstances, took proper action to mitigate the effects of P’s error of judgment. Both M and S were the innocent victims of P’s failure to observe the rules. M broke rule 13, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(b). S was subject to rule 14, but did not break it as it was not possible for her to avoid contact. P’s illegal action was primarily responsible for the incident. M’s claim under rule 19 would have failed because, according to the definition Obstruction, P was not an obstruction since M and S were not required to keep clear of P or give P room.

RYA 1964/8