I’ve been thinking about whether the “reasonable apprehension” principle expressed in WS Case 50 might have broader implications. The case refers specifically to a Rule 10 incident. Can that standard be applied to incidents involving other rules where some judgment by the ROW/entitled boat is required? Example scenarios:
a. Rule 11. Leeward curtails her luff, protests Windward and expresses apprehension that if she had luffed further W would not have responded and contact would have resulted.
b. Rule 18. Inside boat entitled to mark room. Outside boat leaves what she perceives to be sufficient room. I doesn’t believe there’s enough room, expresses apprehension that if she’d tried to pass between O and the mark she’d have contacted one or the other, possibly both. I passes to the wrong side of the mark, protests and then rounds the mark correctly.
c. Rule 19. Boats are approaching an obstruction – Outside obligated to give room, leaves what she believes to be sufficient room but Inside disagrees. I bails out and protests.
d. Rule 19. Similar to c.. but with the added complication that the obstruction is submerged (shoal water, anchor rode) so the exact location of the obstruction isn’t obvious to either boat.
In these kinds of situations, would you apply the “reasonably apprehension” standard to decide whether to rule in favor of the ROW/entitled boat? And if so, would you cite Case 50?