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

Heading: Duty to stand by

Text: 22 Finally, Paterakis argues that the district court erred in finding that the VIRGINIA properly undertook its duty to stand by and render aid and assistance after the collision occurred. A vessel involved in a collision must stand by and render such assistance to the other as may be practicable and necessary. Caradelis v. Refineria Panama, S.A., 384 F.2d 589, 592 (5th Cir.1967); see Hunley v. Ace Maritime Corp., 927 F.2d 493 (9th Cir.1991). 6 Here, the district court found that the VIRGINIA, uncertain whether a collision had occurred, retired to a clear sector to reconstruct events. Sixteen minutes later, after determining that a collision had occurred, it returned to the site of the accident and began a rescue effort. All of the survivors of the accident were rescued within approximately two hours after the rescue was initiated. 23 We agree that the VIRGINIA complied with its duty to stand by. It was appropriate for Voorheis to insure his own vessel was secure before beginning the rescue effort. See Caradelis, 384 F.2d at 594; The Sidney M. Hauptman, 34 F.2d 622, 624 (2d Cir.1929). He returned as soon as safe and practicable and did not evince a purpose to run away. The Sidney M. Hauptman, 34 F.2d at 624. This is not a case in which one vessel entirely abandoned the other, e.g. Hunley, 927 F.2d 493; Theothilatos v. Martin Marine Transp. Co., 127 F.2d 1016 (4th Cir.1942); The Kenilworth, 64 F. 890 (D.N.Y. 1894), or began a rescue attempt only after an unreasonable delay, The Buenos Aires, 5 F.2d 425, 434-35 (2d Cir.1924) (three to four hour delay resulting in deaths of a number of the crew). We therefore affirm the district court's determination that the VIRGINIA rendered appropriate assistance.