(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.
(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.
(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:
(i) Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change.
(ii) Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.
Notes of Decisions
Deloach Marine Servs. L.L.C. v. Marquette Transp, 974 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2020).
“Marquette further argues that the district court’s 7 Rule 7 (see 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 (a)) relevantly provides: (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists.”
In re Marquette Transp. Co., LLC, 292 F. Supp. 3d 719 (E.D. La. 2018).
“(20) Rule 7 of the Inland Navigational Rules, 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 , provides in pertinent part: (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists.”
In re the Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., 219 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” See 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 (a). It further cautions that “[a]ssumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty .”
Youngberg v. McKeough, 534 F. App'x 471 (6th Cir. 2013).
“§ 2007 ; 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 ; and not liable for failing to take action to avoid collision, INR 8, 33 U.”
Rodriguez v. Walters, 136 So. 3d 871 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“33 C.F.R. § 83.07-83.08 . . 33 C.F.R. § 83.”
Larry Alexander v. Ingram Barge Co., 876 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “05 ; and Rule 7, the Risk of Collision rule, 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 . The district court examined each rule against the backdrop of its findings of fact and found no violation.”
Velez-Amador v. Schultz (D.P.R. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 (a). And according to Rule 7(b) “[p]roper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.”
Colross v. Imperato (D.N.J. 2022).
“33 CFR. 83.07(d) af by Plaintiff—specifically that Plaintiff commented “with increased agitation” while he was operating the boat—and_ this caused the accident.”
Kirby Inland Marine L.P. v. FPG Shipbuilding Panama (S.D. Tex. 2021).
“Rule 7—Risk of Collision, 33 C.F.R. § 83.07 (a)—requires vessels to “use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists.”
— 33 C.F.R. § 83.07(d) — 1 case
Colross v. Imperato (D.N.J. 2022).
“33 CFR. 83.07(d) af by Plaintiff—specifically that Plaintiff commented “with increased agitation” while he was operating the boat—and_ this caused the accident.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.