NEGLIGENT OPERATIONS - PROVING VIOLATIONS INVOLVING 

THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT STANDARD OF CARE

Written by

LCDR Demetrius Cheeks

This article provides additional guidance to a previous Coast Guard Hearing Office article on 

establishing the standard of care in negligent operations cases. 1

In a recent Appeal Decision (#5765674) involving a charge of negligent operation under 46 

U.S.C. § 2302(a), the Appeal Authority wrote: “The Hearing Officer found that the [jet-ski]

operator was observed operating at a high rate of speed through a boat anchorage and within 

close proximity to kayakers after sunset with no navigation lights.” 

In deciding the issue of whether the operator had operated his vessel in a negligent manner, the 

Appeal Authority wrote: “As used in 46 U.S.C. § 2302(a), negligence is the failure to use the 

care that a reasonable person would exercise. In this case, there is no evidence of a standard of 

care, that is, what a reasonable person would or would not do in the circumstances. As the

Hearing Officer did not consider what standard of care was breached, the charge cannot stand.” 

This article will briefly revisit the elements of 46 U.S.C. § 2302(a) and illustrate the importance 

of providing objective facts for the purpose of establishing that an operator failed to use the care 

that a reasonable person would use under the same circumstances. 

46 U.S.C. § 2302(a) provides that a person operating a vessel in a negligent manner so as to 

endanger the life, limb, or property of a person is liable to the U.S. Government for a civil 

penalty. In order to prove a violation of negligent operation, there must be evidence to show that 

the charged party: 1) operated a vessel; 2) in a negligent manner; and, in doing so, 3) endangered 

the life, limb or property of a person.

Proving a violation of “Neg Ops” can be challenging because it typically involves a judgment 

call on the part of the Coast Guard boarding officer in determining whether a vessel operator 

failed to use such care as a reasonable and prudent person would use under the same 

circumstances.2In this way, Neg Ops is different from regulations that do not involve a judgment 

 

1 The previous article can be viewed HERE.

2 Although negligence is not defined in statute, it is defined in a Coast Guard regulation. 46 CFR § 5.29 defines 

negligence as “the commission of an act which a reasonable and prudent person of the same station, under the same 
call. Safety equipment violations provide a good example of regulations that do not require a 

judgment call because the standard is clearly set in regulation. For example, the requirement to 

have a PFD for every person aboard a recreational boat does not involve a judgment call. If 

there are four adults aboard a vessel, the vessel must have four adult-sized PFDs. The regulation 

sets a clearly defined standard.

As we have seen in many Neg Ops cases, a violation of the “reasonable and prudent” standard is 

not as clear-cut as Neg Ops cases that do not involve a subjective “reasonable and prudent” 

standard.3 Generally, in order to prove negligent operations under the “reasonable and prudent 

standard,” there must be sufficient, objective facts to support the Coast Guard’s determination 

that the vessel operator failed to use such care that a reasonable and prudent person would use 

under the same circumstances.

In reviewing the most recent Appeal Decision, the following contrasting examples may help 

demonstrate the importance of including factual observations to support a determination that a 

vessel operator did not act in a way in which a reasonable and prudent person of the same station 

and under the same circumstances would act. 

Example 1: Coast Guard boarding officers observed vessel X operating at a high rate of speed 

through a boat anchorage and within close proximity to kayakers. 

Example 2: Coast Guard boarding officers observed vessel X operating at a rate of speed that 

was unsafe given the close proximity of [INSERT NUMBER OF KAYAKERS/VESSELS] and 

[INSERT ESTIMATED DISTANCE THAT VESSEL X CAME WITHIN THE 

KAYAKERS/VESSELS]. Vessel X was observed by Coast Guard boarding officers from a 

distance of [INSERT ESTIMATED DISTANCE THAT CG BOARDING OFFICERS 

OBSERVED THE CONDUCT]. Based on the [INSERT ESTIMATED DISTANCE THE 

VESSEL TRAVELED] during the Boarding Officer’s observation and based on this Boarding 

Officer’s [INSERT YEARS/MONTHS] experience as a Boarding Officer, the vessel’s speed was 

estimated to be [INSERT ESTIMATED SPEED – BETWEEN Y to Z MPH]. In addition, Coast 

Guard boarding officers observed the wake of vessel X cause an unsafe and immediate rocking 

effect upon several kayakers in the anchorage as vessel X operated at high speed within 

[INSERT FEET/YARDS] from the kayakers. Based on this boarding officer’s observation of 

other vessels that, under the same circumstances and location as vessel X, were operated in a 

prudent and reasonable manner by transiting [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVED

 

circumstances, would not commit, or the failure to perform an act which a reasonable and prudent person, of the 

same station, under the same circumstances, would not fail to perform.”

3 The aforementioned CGHO article entitled “Negligent Operations – Establishing the Standard of Care” gives 

examples of objective ways in which to establish the standard of care. An example includes referring to existing 

laws or regulations such as the Navigation Rules, or navigation safety regulations which require specific actions 

under specific conditions. For example, the standard of care may require adherence to posted “No Wake” zones. A 

vessel operator that is observed creating a wake with his vessel inside a marked “No Wake” zone has breached the 

standard of care, making it unnecessary to further address the standard of care. Another example of establishing 

negligent operations using an objective standard is a vessel grounding because, under common law, a vessel 

grounding creates a presumption of negligence. This presumption makes it unnecessary to further address the 

standard of care. 
OPERATIONS OF OTHER VESSELS], it is this Boarding Officer’s opinion that the operator of 

vessel X was not operating his vessel in a manner that demonstrated reasonable and prudent care. 

While both examples describe the same event, Example 1 results in more questions than answers.

For example, what is a high rate of speed? What is close proximity? How far away was the

boarding officer from the vessel at the time the alleged negligent operation was observed? How 

would a reasonable and prudent person have operated his vessel in that situation and location? 

Finally, these examples are simply for the purpose of illustrating the importance of including 

pertinent factual observations on the part of the Boarding Officer when establishing that a vessel 

operator did not act in a manner that demonstrates reasonable care under the particular 

circumstances. While every case will have its own facts and circumstances, it is important to 

understand that cases involving a charge of negligent operation are very fact-dependent on the 

issue of whether the operator failed to act in a way in which a reasonable and prudent person of 

the same station and under the same circumstances would act. 

If questions arise concerning what evidence to collect to establish that an operator acted in a 

negligent manner, please contact your local IO shop or servicing legal office. 

;