In an interesting case heard in US District Court, Northern of California in June 1986, the Coast Guard was held solely liable for the loss of two persons from a sailboat which sank in a storm after striking as assisting foreign freighter. This case is unusual in that the Coast Guard never ordered a unit underway to assist the sinking boat.
Under Chapter 14 USC Section 88, the Coast Guard has discretion to render aid to persons and to property. It need not do so, but once it undertakes an obligation to do so, it owes a duty to respond in a reasonable and competent manner.
While previous cases have applied this rule in litigation, it has always been with regard to the action of a Coast Guard unit sent to find or rescue persons and property in peril. Her, the Coast Guard never sent one of their own units to assist the sailboat.
This fact situation revolved around a small sailboat with three persons aboard which attempted to return to San Francisco harbor at night in a storm. At the same time, an offshore sailboat race to the Farallon Islands was being held and several of those boats were unaccounted for and believed to be in peril. The Coast Guard was busy providing assistance to two of these boats.
The plaintiffs had asked for assistance because they were lost and their boat was being set down on a lee shore due to a poorly operating engine. The operator called the Coast Guard which in turn handed communications over to the Cost Guard Auxiliary acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. With the knowledge and consent of the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System, the Auxiliary switched the sailboats to channel 13, a non search and rescue channel, and one not held by Coast Guard shore search and rescue units.
The Auxiliary requested a freighter anchored nearby to assist the sailboat. Both the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System and the Coast Guard Auxiliary promised to stand by on channel 13. The sailboat was also promised that a Coast Guard unit would be sent to assist them as soon as one was available.
While attempting to take a line from the anchored freighter, and unbeknownst to the freighter, the sailboat struck the stationary propeller of the freighter and started to take on water while drifting astern into the darkness. Within minutes after the sailboat drifted out of sight of the freighter, a Coast Guard helicopter was in the area using floodlights to search the water. The master of the freighter which was in shallow water near shore, saw the helicopter and assumed that the Cost Guard was on scene as earlier promised. A Coast Guard boat passed a half mile from the sinking sailboat within 30 minutes after it attempted to take a line from the freighter. Neither unit was looking for the sailboat and each was engaged in other search and rescue missions.
At this time, the sinking sailboat sent out a MAYDAY. However, there was no response to the MATDAT because the operator at the Vessel Traffic system had gone to the head and the Coast Guard Auxiliary had shifted to another frequency. Both had assumed that the sailboat was safely alongside the freighter because the sailboat had said they "were taking a line" from the freighter. The weak MAYDAY was not heard by other vessels but was recorded on the Vessel Traffic monitoring tape.
Coast Guard units were available during the entire sequence of events but were not dispatched. Two of the three crew members died.
The Court held that the sailboat had acted in reliance of the Coast Guard’s promise to send a boat when available and to monitor the frequency. When the Coast Guard failed to carry out its promises, and failed to later check on the safety of the sailboat, it was negligent.
A MEC—furnished expert testified on behalf of the co-defendant freighter which was absolved of any liability.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for this Issue