Opinion ID: 700042
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violations of COLREGS

Text: 13 The district court found that the VASSILIOS failed to give way to the VIRGINIA and failed to comply with several COLREGS, including Rule 5, which required it to maintain a proper lookout, and Rule 7, which required it to use all available means to avoid a collision. Paterakis does not appear to contest these findings, but rather argues that the VIRGINIA should be found partially at fault because it violated the following COLREGS: Rule 5 (proper lookout), Rule 6 (safe speed), Rule 7 (proper use of radar and other means of avoiding collision), Rules 8 and 17 (action by stand-on vessel to avoid a collision), Rule 34 (warning signals), and Rule 2 (precautions required by the ordinary practice of seamen). 14 The district court found that the VIRGINIA did not violate any COLREGS. With regard to Rule 5, it found that the VIRGINIA kept a proper lookout at all relevant times. Paterakis v. United States, 849 F.Supp. 1106, 1112 (E.D. Va.1994). Regarding Rule 6, it found that the VIRGINIA's speed of 18 knots was safe in view of the lightness of traffic and the VIRGINIA's high degree of maneuverability. Id. As to Rule 7, it determined that the VIRGINIA properly used its radar at all relevant times, maintaining no fewer than three different plots of their radar data. Id. Finally, with respect to Rules 8 and 17, it noted that the VIRGINIA took evasive action when it realized collision was imminent and that the VASSILIOS was not going to yield. Id. at 1111 n. 6. With respect to all of these Rules, we find no error and therefore affirm the district court on its own reasoning. 15 The district court did not explicitly address Rules 2 and 34. Rule 2 requires a vessel to take any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. Paterakis claims that the VIRGINIA violated Rule 2 by failing to attempt to communicate with the VASSILIOS by VHF radio. This contention was not raised before the district court, and we therefore do not address it on appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 16 Rule 34(d) requires the use of a warning signal: 17 [w]hen vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. 18 The district court found that the VIRGINIA blew six whistle blasts just prior to the collision. Although it did not explicitly address whether that action satisfied Rule 34(d), it concluded generally that the VIRGINIA complied with all applicable rules. 19 The evidence supports the district court's conclusion that the VIRGINIA did not violate Rule 34(d). When the VIRGINIA's radar lost the VASSILIOS in sea return, the last reading showed a course that would result in a closest point of approach of about 1500 yards. At that point, no doubt existed about the VASSILIOS's intentions, and the VIRGINIA had no duty to signal. See Compania De Navegacion Cebaco, S.A. v. The Steel Flyer, 200 F.2d 643, 647-48 (4th Cir.1952) (no duty to blow whistle when no doubt about actions of other vessel); c.f. United States v. Soya Atlantic, 330 F.2d 732, 736 (4th Cir.1964) (duty to sound danger signal arose only when it became apparent that give-way vessel was not going to yield); Maritrans Operating Partners L.P. v. M/T Faith I, 800 F.Supp. 133, 143 (D.N.J.1992) (duty to sound whistle arose only when radar readings indicated collision would occur). 20 The district court found that the VIRGINIA first became aware that the VASSILIOS might be closer than expected just minutes before the collision, when Lt. Foley noticed the VASSILIOS's green sidelight off of the VIRGINIA's port side. Shortly thereafter, the VIRGINIA reduced its speed, applied right full rudder, and blew six short blasts on the ship's whistle. Even if a short time lapsed between the moment of Foley's warning and the sounding of the whistle, the vessels were already in an in extremis situation, and we do not secondguess the VIRGINIA's last-minute actions to avoid the collision. Curtis Bay Towing Co. v. Sadowski, 247 F.2d 422, 424-25 (4th Cir.1957); see also Maritrans, 800 F.Supp. at 143 (failure to give whistle signal one minute before collision did not contribute to collision because vessels were already in an in extremis situation). 21 We therefore affirm the district court's finding that the VIRGINIA complied with the COLREGS.