Case 110
Rule 61.4(b)(2), Redress: Redress Decisions
Rule 61.4(b)(3), Redress: Redress Decisions
Under rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2) or <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(3), a boat physically damaged is eligible for redress only if the damage itself significantly worsened her score or place. Contact is not necessary for one boat to cause injury or physical damage to another. A worsening of a boat’s score or place caused by an avoiding manoeuvre is not, by itself, grounds for redress. In rules <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2) and <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(3), ‘injury’ refers to bodily injury to a person and ‘damage’ is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment.
Facts for Questions 1,2, and 3
The rules of Part 2 apply between boats A and B. B is required to keep clear of A. However, B collides with A, turning A 180 degrees before she is able to continue sailing to the next mark. A loses five finishing places because of the incident. She protests B and requests redress under rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2). During the hearing, A’s protest is upheld and B is penalized. The protest committee also finds that there was physical damage to A but that the damage itself did not affect her ability to proceed in the race at normal speed.

Question 1
Is A entitled to redress?

Answer 1
No. Under rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2), the damage itself must be the reason a boat's score is made significantly worse. In this case the damage had no effect on A's score.

Question 2
Must contact between the boats occur in order for redress to be granted under rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2)?

Answer 2
No. A boat that suffers injury to a member of her crew or physical damage while acting to avoid contact with a boat that has broken a rule of Part 2 may be entitled to redress if the injury or damage is found to have made her score significantly worse and was not her fault. See also Case <%= case_link('135') %>.

Question 3
If there had been no collision because A had been able to avoid B by changing course 180 degrees, but A lost five places as a result, would she have suffered “injury” or “damage” as those terms are used in rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2)?
 
Answer 3 No.  In rule <%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(2), "injury" refers only to bodily injury to a person, and “damage” is limited to physical damage to a boat or her equipment. See also Case  <%= case_link('19) %>.

Facts for Question 4
The facts are the same as for Questions 1, 2 and 3 except that B is a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear or was determined to be at fault under the IRPCAS or a government right-of-way rule, and A requests redress under rule
<%= rule_link('61.4') %>(b)(3):

The rules of Part 2 do not apply between boats A and B. B is a vessel not racing. The IRPCAS apply between A and B. Under a rule in the IRPCAS, B is required to keep clear of A. However, B collides with A, turning A 180 degrees before she is able to continue sailing to the next mark. A loses five finishing places because of the incident. A requests redress under rule 61.4(b)(3). During the redress hearing, the protest committee finds that a rule in the IRPCAS did require B to keep clear of A and that B was at fault under that rule. The protest committee also finds that there was physical damage to A but that the damage itself did not affect her ability to proceed in the race at normal speed.

Question 4
Would the answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3 be the same?

Answer 4
Yes.

USA 1996/73 and 2007/98 
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more