Submission of Ground 7 e- Appealing Judge Davis’s Decision

M Pigneguy was not entitled to invoke the Crossing Rule when he himself creates the situation, by his own negligent action.

Submission of Ground 7 e- Appealing Judge Davis’s Decision
Prepared by Appellant, M J Bolton (Skipper/Owner of Classique)
The changing of the Category of Approach by the ferry.
Refer SD [13] Para 21,22,(D) This situation has similarities with that of … Spyros v Rebecka E, UK Admiralty Division, in which Lord Merriman said –
“ the Spyros is not entitled to invoke the crossing rule when she herself creates the situation, in which it would theoretically apply, by her own negligent action.”
When the ferry turned from its course of 260 deg at Sth Motuihe and identified Classique heading out from the North side of Browns Island towards an anchorage at the Southern end of Motuihe, it should have been obvious that Classique was not required to make a course change on its part but M Pigneyguy did not take that into account as part of his risk assessment – “I had no idea what course you were steering”… Trans Page 41. also Refer to Appeal Ground 1.c above.
Collision Regulations allow for special circumstances – they are about good seamanship, sea-manners, courtesy, forehandedness & prudence. Trans Page 231
==============================================
Note in addition to the above submissions …
The situation between the vessels Spyros & Rebecca E, has close similaries with that which was created by the violation of M Pigneguy. He failed to either steer a straight course eg 286 deg or follow the ferry’s Regular Run by turning West round Nth Browns Island.
1 – Seaway turned at Sth Motuihe from its course of 260 deg from Waiheke.
2 – M Pigneguy recognized Classique on a course of about 80 deg leaving the vicinity of Nth Browns Island.
3 – At that point more than 2 nmiles separated Seaway from Classique.
4 – If M Pigneguy had maintained 286* each would’ve passed each other starboard to Starboard with a clearance of 463 mtrs.
5 – Seaway changed the category of approach by incrementally turning to 297* thereby manufacturing a closer quarters by her own negligent action.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

M Pigneguy was not entitled to invoke the Crossing Rule when he himself creates the situation,
in which it would theoretically apply, by his own negligent action.

Submission of Ground 7 e- Appealing Judge Davis's Decision

Submission of Ground 7 e- Appealing Judge Davis’s Decision

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge