By Marilyn Raia
Lights on an automobile give information to the driver about
what is on the road ahead. Lights on a vessel give no information to the vessel
operator. Rather, lights on a vessel give information to others about the
vessel’s course and characteristics so that collisions can be avoided, and
federal law dictates what lights are required on a vessel. The lighting laws
are not as simple as one might expect, and are said to “embody an elaborate
code”. This article addresses some vessel lighting basics.
Finding
the Lighting Rules
Vessel lighting requirements in the United
States date back to the mid 19th century. The current versions of the
requirements are found primarily in two places: the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (known as the “Colregs” or “International
Rules”) and the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (known as the “Inland
Rules”). The former is an international treaty adopted in 1972 and entered into
force in 1977. The latter is a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1980.
The International Rules and the Inland Rules
contain many types of navigation-related rules in addition to vessel lighting
rules. The International and Inland rules are similar, but not identical. Both
are available on the Internet for no charge or side-by-side in a booklet
published by the Coast Guard.
The Basic
Application of the Vessel Lighting Rules
The vessel lighting rules apply to all
“vessels,” and “vessels” is defined broadly as watercraft including non
displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used for
transportation on the water. That means the vessel lighting rules apply to a
wide variety of watercraft including, but certainly not limited to, canoes,
sailboats, fishing vessels, tugs, seaplanes, barges, containerships, and
tankers as well as partially submerged vessels, anchored vessels, and vessels
being towed.
Whether the International Rules or the Inland
Rules apply depends on where the vessel is. The International Rules apply to
vessels on the high seas and on all waters connected to the high seas that are
navigable by seagoing vessels. The Inland Rules apply to vessels on the inland
waters of the United States and to United States vessels in the Canadian waters
of the Great Lakes, if not in conflict with Canadian law. Federal regulations
provide a line of demarcation for the applicability of the International and
Inland Rules. That line generally follows the coastline. For example, the
International Rules apply in San Francisco Bay.
The lighting rules apply from sunset to
sunrise. During that time, no other vessel lights are permitted to be displayed
that could be mistaken for the required lights, or that could interfere with
the visibility or distinctive characteristics of the required lights. Lights
that impair a vessel’s ability to keep a proper lookout are also not permitted.
The lighting rules are not suspended during inclement weather.
Types of
Lights
The International Rules provide for six
different types of lights. They are a masthead light, sidelights, a stern
light, a towing light, an all around light, and a flashing light. The Inland
Rules provide for the same six types of lights plus a seventh, a “special
flashing light”. Both sets of rules provide for four different colors of
lights: white, red, green and yellow.
Each of the required types of lights has
characteristics that may include color, intensity, and location on the vessel.
For example, under the International Rules, a masthead light is “a white light
placed over the fore and aft centerline of the vessel showing an unbroken light
over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees and fixed that it shows light from
right ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the beam on either side of the vessel.” Under
the Inland Rules, the definition of a masthead light is the same, except on
vessels less than 12 meters in length, the masthead light need only be placed
“as nearly as practicable” to the fore and aft centerline of the vessel.
How intense the required lights must be is
dependent on the size of the vessel. For example, under both sets of rules, the
masthead light on a vessel more than 50 meters in length must be visible for a
minimum of six miles. On vessels more than 20 but less than 50 meters in
length, the masthead light must be visible for a minimum of five miles. On
vessels from 12 to 20 meters in length, the masthead light must be visible for
a minimum of three miles. On vessels less than 12 meters in length, the
masthead light must be visible for a minimum of two miles.
A vessel’s type, type of propulsion, and
activities also affect what lights are required. There are basic lighting rules
for a power-driven vessel when underway, and modifications of the basic
lighting rules if a power-driven vessel is engaged in certain activities such
as towing or being towed, dredging, trawling, fishing but not trawling,
mine-clearing or diving. There are also lighting requirements for vessels under
sail, vessels under sail but also propelled by machinery, and vessels under
oars. Vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver and vessels at anchor are
also required to display particular lights.
Consequences
of Not Following the Lighting Rules
When followed, the lighting rules provide
important information about a vessel. When the lighting rules are not followed,
serious consequences may follow. Indeed, the failure to properly light a vessel
has been said to be “one of the most recklessly unlawful acts a vessel can
commit”. And, under The Pennsylvania Rule, when a vessel in a collision is
found to have violated a statutory rule designed to prevent collisions, such as
the lighting rules, a presumption of fault is raised. To avoid liability, the
violator must prove the violation did not and could not have played a role in
the collision. It is a very difficult burden.
The First National Bank of Chicago v.
Material Service Corporation, 597 F.2d 1110 (7th Cir. 1979) is one of many
cases addressing the consequences of improper vessel lighting. That case
involved a nighttime collision between a 16-foot pleasure craft and a flotilla
of barges being pushed by a tug. The barges had red and green lights on their
bow corners and a flashing amber light at the center head. A forward facing
white light on the tug’s pilothouse was not illuminated although there were red
and green directional lights on the pilothouse roof. The tug operator saw the
pleasure craft’s red light and perceived the vessels to be on a collision
course. He reversed the tug’s engines and steered right, believing he was
leaving a wide expanse of clear water for the pleasure craft. The pleasure
craft struck the center of the bow of one of the barges and two occupants of
the pleasure craft were killed. The district court found the pleasure craft
solely at fault. The Seventh Circuit reversed the decision and sent the case
back to the district court. On retrial, the district court found the tug and barge
to be in violation of three lighting rules as well as other navigational rules.
It allocated sole fault in the collision to the tug and barge. The Seventh
Circuit affirmed the finding of fault imposed on the tug and barge due to
improper lighting and held the lighting configuration created a “traveling
trap” moving down a dark river. But, the Seventh Circuit also held some fault
should be attributed to the pleasure boat operator. It reasoned the pleasure
boat operator should have been able to see the lights on the barges and been on
warning that something, albeit unidentifiable at the time, was ahead.
The lighting rules may not be disregarded in
favor of a local custom. Kaseroff v. Etersen, 136 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1943)
involved a nighttime collision between two fishing vessels, the Martindale and
the Yankee Clipper, off
the California coast. The night was moonless but clear, and the sea was calm.
The Martindale located
and circled a school of fish. While preparing to make a set, the Martindale was
struck by the Yankee Clipper and
suffered hull damage. At the time of the collision, neither vessel had a white
masthead light. Instead, under a local custom, they each had a red masthead
light which, when illuminated, showed the vessel had priority over a school of
fish. The district court found the Martindale had
complied with all laws and customs, and was not at fault in the collision. The
Ninth Circuit disagreed. It held a local custom of not displaying a white
masthead light did not excuse compliance with the International Rules nor
relieve the offender of the consequences of non-compliance. It held both
vessels equally at fault for improper lighting and reduced by half the damages
previously awarded to the Martindale’s owner.
The lighting requirements in the
International and Inland Rules are designed to convey information about a
vessel’s size, activities, and course so that collisions can be avoided.
Mariners should determine what lighting requirements apply to their vessels and
make sure their vessels are in strict compliance to avoid significant financial
consequences.
Marilyn Raia is of counsel in the San
Francisco office of Bullivant Houser Bailey. She is certified by the State Bar
of California as a specialist in admiralty-maritime law and can be reached at marilyn.raia@bullivant.com.
