T&T: Obligations for Rescue at Sea

[Paul Coleman]

 Examining the complete text of what defines a Master's duty of rescue
and what a Master's responsibility is, under varying conditions, to his
own vessel and that of others to be rescued is not at all inappropriate
-- it is most prudent.  I personally do not find my fellow mariner's
full reference to the text incredible, nor am I incredulous at his
emphasis of the broad discretion a Master is given in any rescue or in
the refusal thereof.  It is the abuse of that discretion or the
negligent exercise of that discretion that seems to be troubling here. 


What is not in the text but which in my opinion is inferred in
law, is that the exercise of that discretion, whether in the
undertaking of a rescue or in the refusal to undertake a rescue, must
be done in good faith; i.e.,
was a Master's exercise of his discretion in refusing to undertake a
rescue he felt could result in "serious danger" to his own vessel or
its passengers, or result in "serious danger" to the other vessel or
its passengers, done in good faith?  If such rescue action or inaction
is in good faith, then the Master has appropriately fulfilled his duty.

I,
for one, share my fellow mariner's concerns here, not only about the
California Court's recent ruling, but I am most troubled by the
post-rescue statements and actions of the folks here who saw one of
their passenger's rescued and his life saved.  Whether the bill was
$500 or $5,000, it should be paid.  Rather than grumbling and finding fault,
the SB Captain should be gushing with thanks, and send the CS Master a
birthday day card for life!  Would the SB Captain prefer to have
the death of his passenger (friend?) on his conscience?

FWIW, having practiced law for nearly 30 years, if I am going to
be sued when I undertake to rescue someone, placing my own vessel and my
wallet at
risk, etc., then I will not undertake a rescue!  I will utilize all of
my electronic equipment, radios, etc., to notify the authorities, etc.,
but I will not risk my vessel or my wallet for ungrateful,
narcissistic, complaining fools.

My 2cents worth
M/Y Miss Mary Alma
61' Hatteras
Wilmington, NC

--- On Sat, 12/27/08, Joel Wilkins <cruiser6003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Joel Wilkins <cruiser6003 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: T&T: Obligations for Rescue at Sea
To: "Trawlers-n-Trawlering" <trawlers-and-trawlering at lists.samurai.com>
Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 1:16 PM

I find it incredulous that a fellow mariner (or is joe boater more
appropriate) would try to find a loophole to allow for not rescuing a
severely
ill individual at sea (especially in light of a successful rescue) ....May
Neptune keep your boat out of harms way such that you never need said
assistance.

Joel Wilkins
m/s Miss Magoo
C-45, #98
S. Pasadena

Snip..
That very sentence give every ships Master the right to refuse any rescue
mission as he deems appropriate.  If he feels there is "serious
danger"
involved (and that is a VERY subjective topic), then he has the right of
refusal.

The captain of the cruise ship performed the rescue out of the goodness of
his heart.  Based on conditions, he could have easily declared his
crewmembers in "serious danger" performing a rescue like that.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering

To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options (get password, change
email
address, etc) go to:
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/options/trawlers-and-trawlering

Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.