|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 31, 2020 17:26:02 GMT
I assume that ultimately it will be up to the owner of a boat to ensure it is securely moored even if someone else moves it. Yes, I mentioned this earlier. It's a good point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:26:19 GMT
Here's a simple analogy for the hard-of-thinking. If I get a garage to fit a new handbrake cable to my car, then I park it on a hill and go shopping and the cable snaps and the car runs away damaging other cars, then the claim will be against me, not the garage or the manufacturer of the handbrake cable. The fact that I have not been negligent in any way is neither here nor there. Naturally I will pass on the claim to my insurer, and they may or may not attempt to recover their costs from the negligent party. I'm not so sure that is a good example. C&RT as the employers will have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_lawUsing Automotive examples to bolster an argument in Marine incidents/accidents seldom holds water. In this case an employer is responsible not a private individual, so RTA examples would seem redundant too. Interesting case nonetheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:28:57 GMT
If the owner gave permission for someone else to move the boat does that mean that they accept liability for the actions of that person? It seems like a topic for NigelMoore
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:45:59 GMT
If the owner gave permission for someone else to move the boat does that mean that they accept liability for the actions of that person? It seems like a topic for NigelMoore No, I don't think so for the reasons stated above. Tony can't be held responsible for the actions or inactions of others employed by a third party - the third party should have robust Risk Assessment, Method Statements and management procedures to ensure no harm comes to persons or property. All staff should be adequately trained, and supervised along with being provided with the correct equipment and information to carry their jobs out safely - it would appear they haven't managed this in this particular instance. The reason I'm waffling on about VL? We have to consider vicarious liability at work when choosing who to let loose on things like forklift trucks, scissor lifts along with machine tools and production lines, some people are better off left to simple manual labour - the risks are too high to let a simpleton loose on something that could injur or kill someone else unlucky enough to be in the same building.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 18:43:52 GMT
Assuming that's right, and it sounds credible, then it will be up to the underwriters of 'Selby Michael' to obtain an admission of culpability from CaRT. I'm sure they will be most obliging.
Unless, of course, 'Selby Michael' is not insured, in which case the claimants for restitution may well be pissing into the wind.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 31, 2020 19:11:23 GMT
I reckon a large barge of say 95ft in length drifting down a river not under command would possibly stray from the MNC due to windage and lack of steering control. You're forgetting the two Court rulings on the extent of the MNC that C&RT have gone to so much trouble and expense to obtain. The Judges in Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust (High Court) and C&RT -v- Dunkley (County Court) were unequivocal in their support of C&RT's contention that the main navigable channel of the river Trent extended for the whole width of the river from bank to bank . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. ........ . . . .... . . . sorry, . . . uncontrollable fits of laughing again, . . I'll come back and finish this after regaining my composure !
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 20:24:41 GMT
I reckon a large barge of say 95ft in length drifting down a river not under command would possibly stray from the MNC due to windage and lack of steering control. . . . ................. ........ . . . .... . . . sorry, . . . uncontrollable fits of laughing again, . . I'll come back and finish this after regaining my composure ! You seem to be having lots of uncontrollable fits of laughter about this incident, which has damaged numerous other boats and pontoons and is destined to cause you the most enormous shitstorm a month or two down the line when the letters about your uninsured boat start arriving. Are you sure you are not possibly a bit mentally ill?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 31, 2020 20:32:24 GMT
. . . ................. ........ . . . .... . . . sorry, . . . uncontrollable fits of laughing again, . . I'll come back and finish this after regaining my composure ! You seem to be having lots of uncontrollable fits of laughter about this incident, which has damaged numerous other boats and pontoons and is destined to cause you the most enormous shitstorm a month or two down the line when the letters about your uninsured boat start arriving. Are you sure you are not possibly a bit mentally ill? Yes, . . well done, . . . completely missing the point, and misunderstanding everything, . . as usual !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 20:44:36 GMT
Can we just clarify something here please.
It's regarding the status of the barge called "Selby Michael".
It came adrift for one reason and another. It floated down a river on its own, unhindered and presumably with unbridled joy and being unleashed.
All boats have a soul.
Did it hit any bridges ?
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Jan 31, 2020 21:04:30 GMT
The judge actually determined the MNC to carry a different definition according to context.... for licensing purposes (specific to your case Mr Dunkley) MNC meant bank to bank; for navigation purposes MNC was defined as the dredged navigable channel....
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 21:08:07 GMT
You seem to be having lots of uncontrollable fits of laughter about this incident, which has damaged numerous other boats and pontoons and is destined to cause you the most enormous shitstorm a month or two down the line when the letters about your uninsured boat start arriving. Are you sure you are not possibly a bit mentally ill? Yes, . . well done, . . . completely missing the point, and misunderstanding everything, . . as usual ! No, I understand the position completely. Your uninsured boat broke its mooring and caused £20,000's worth of damage to other boats and river infrastructure which you will either end up paying for or being declared bankrupt over and this is causing you the most enormous mirth and merriment. I suppose humour is subjective but for me, the situation would be fairly concerning, or at least it would not be the type of event which caused me to break out in uncontrollable fits of glee. It's no wonder Ricco didn't want you anywhere near his boat, is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 21:09:11 GMT
Shania will have a good evening me thinks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 21:11:15 GMT
. . . ................. ........ . . . .... . . . sorry, . . . uncontrollable fits of laughing again, . . I'll come back and finish this after regaining my composure ! ...is destined to cause you the most enormous shitstorm a month or two down the line when the letters about your uninsured boat start arriving. Whichever way it turns out is unlikely to trouble Tony in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 31, 2020 21:31:51 GMT
The judge actually determined the MNC to carry a different definition according to context.... for licensing purposes (specific to your case Mr Dunkley) MNC meant bank to bank; for navigation purposes MNC was defined as the dredged navigable channel.... Even if that was true, it could never have any bearing on the definition and scope of the the MNC on a river waterway, . . simply because there isn't an authority in the land that has the powers to issue a statutory boat licence permitting pleasure craft to exercise the PRN on a publicly navigable river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 21:37:16 GMT
I did notice on the two recent occasions when I renewed my Thames registrations for a couple of small launches I keep on the River that the lady on the the phone said "I will get your plates in the post today". Specifically avoiding the use of the word "Licence". Even though that is a term often used to describe the piece of paper you put on the boat to indicate you have paid for the registration certificate.
EA seem to be a bit more straightforward than CRT in that respect.
|
|