Michael Savasuk, an attorney in Portland, Maine, reported in an article in the December 1993 issue of National Fisherman, that an anchored fishing boat had been held partly at fault in a collision. The 38' wood and fiberglass gillnetter longliner LESLIE ELLEN was anchored on the fishing grounds showing an all around white anchor light approximately 12 feet about the water line and side lights, but no other deck lights. Although the radar reflector which she carried were not properly aligned, it was determined that the LESLIE ELLEN could be seen on radar at eight miles and therefore was not required to have radar reflectors under 46 CFR 28.235(b).
The other vessel, a 58' steel longliner named the PANTHER, left Portland, Maine on the night of November 11, 1992 and proceeded at seven knots towards her fishing grounds 60 miles southeast. The weather was clear with 25-30 knot winds and accompanying seas of 10-15'. The temperature was below freezing and spray froze on the PANTHER. One of her two radars was in operation. The raised bow obstructed vision dead ahead. Several large targets were showing up on the radar.
Prior to relieving the wheel at 4:30 a.m. the oncoming watch stepped outside the wheelhouse and took a quick look around the horizon and saw the vessels reported on radar but did not see the LESLIE ELLEN anchored ahead which had not appeared on radar. It is doubtful that the offgoing watch had left the wheelhouse during his two hour watch.
Ten minutes later, the PANTHER collided with the anchored LESLIE ELLEN.
The court recognizing the strong presumption against the underway vessel, found the PANTHER at fault for the wheel watch not periodically leaving the wheelhouse and looking around the horizon (rule 5), and for not periodically adjusting the radar to reduce the sea return. However, the court also found the LESLIE ELLEN at fault stating:
The LESLIE ELLEN was also at fault. Her anchor light was only 12 feet above the water. Since the seas were 10 to 15 feet high, her crew should have known that the anchor light would often be invisible to other vessels. Its visibility was further impaired by icing conditions [although still visible at two miles]. The crew should also have known that the LESLIE ELLEN was not a good radar target.
The experts at the trial disagreed over the obligation of the LESLIE ELLEN to post a watch. I find that it is not the practice in the fishing industry for vessels of her size to maintain a watch at anchor and that it is ordinarily not negligent to fail to do so. Given the seas, the icing conditions and the nature of her radar image, however, and the given fact that she was anchored in a location that, although not a channel of navigation, was an area frequently trafficked by other fishing vessels, the LESLIE ELLEN should have taken further precautions, either by providing additional lights, such as her deck lights, or by turning on her own radar with an alarm setting to alert the crew as vessels approached.
The LESLIE ELLEN was found 20% at fault.
Mr. Savasuk points out the importance of this ruling. It holds that vessels must go beyond the minimal requirements of the basic rules of the road. Rule 2, Responsibility, which was earlier known as the rule of good seamanship, holds vessels and the crews which navigate them responsible for actions required by good seamanship or special circumstances not specifically otherwise covered by the rules.
It is important that smaller vessels make their presence known since often they do not present a good radar target because of their size. In heavy seas, they can be lost in the sea return. This is doubly so when the vessel is constructed of wood or fiberglass and thus presents an even poorer radar target. Bad weather makes them particularly difficult to see visually, also.
The rules and fault aside, many vessels disappear each year which were seaworthy when they left port. Knowledgeable investigators believe a number disappear because they are run down by other vessels which don't see them. Several fishing vessels which were struck have survived although the other vessel has proceeded on, unaware that they have struck a smaller vessel. Failure to take adequate precautions under special circumstances could "ruin your entire day". TAN-TAR-A, Inc v F/V PANTHER and Stephanie Jane, Civil Action 92-258-P-H, U.S. District Court of Maine.