Returning to last weeks post where I asked to draw a picture of the facts stated, Brass send me this mail:
I deduce that the bank is on the boats' port side, because if it was to starboard and K became overlapped between the bank and R on Port tack, then R would not be able to luff into K.
Have I got that right?
I think that that sort of context information, which takes 'a thousand words' is what diagrams are really useful for.
My only question then is: When K became overlapped between R and the bank, was there room for K to pass between R and the obstruction?
If Yes, R (Right of Way boat, RRS 11) was obliged to give K room to pass between R and the obstruction (RRS 18.5), and R was obliged to give K room to keep clear when R changed course (taking into account the closeness of the obstruction). K ended up in the mud, indicating that she did not have room to keep clear, there was contact, indicating that R did not give room to keep clear and that it was not reasonably possible for K to avoid contact. There was damage, so R is not protected from RRS 14. R breaks RRS 16.1, 18.5 and 14. DSQ R.
K breaks RRS 11 but K is compelled to break the rule by R failing to give her room. Exonerate K.
If No, when K becomes overlapped inside R, as well as being obliged to keep clear by RRS 11, K is also obliged to keep clear under RRS 18.5. HOWEVER, R is obliged to give K room when R changes course (RRS 16.1) (taking into account the closeness of the obstruction) and to avoid contact (RRS 14). K breaks RRS 11, and 18.5. DSQ K. R breaks RRS 16.1 and 14, DSQ R.
In the list of facts I stated there where two missing:
One was found by Brass in his answer. The space between the shore and K at the moment R established an overlap.
The other is: What was the distance between the boats when R got the overlap.
If that was too close, R broke rule 15 and K may be exonerated for 16.1
According to the diagram drawn we have to go with Brass' first set of conclusions.