33 C.F.R. § 83.14

Head-on situation (Rule 14)

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Unless otherwise agreed, when two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this Rule, a power-driven vessel operating on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i) (§ 83.34(a)(i)), as appropriate.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: Deloach Marine Servs. L.L.C. v. Marquette Transp, 974 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Deloach Marine Servs. L.L.C. v. Marquette Transp, 974 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “4 Rule 14(d) (see 33 C.F.R. § 83.14 (d)) provides: (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this Rule, a power-driven vessel operating on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the…”

Rodriguez v. Walters, 136 So. 3d 871 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 83.14 . . 33 C.F.R. § 83.09 (a)(1).”

People v. Payne CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “” ( 33 C.F.R. § 83.14 (a) (2019).) Defendant’s theory of the case rested on the premise that the collision of his boat with the victims on the innertube was the result not of his boating under the influence or failing to exercise reasonable care, but instead of the failures of…”

Riley v. Kirby Corp. (E.D. La. 2024). “17 33 C.F.R. § 83.14 (d). 18 Canal Barge Co.”

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.