Fox is sensational in its reporting, but it's not necessarily that straight forward.
The rules (crossing situation vs overtaking situation) that may be at issue here are for ships in sight of one another. At this point, we don't even know (at least I haven't seen it described anywhere) the prevailing visibility conditions at the time and location of the accident: Could the two vessels see each other? If not, the crossing rule and the overtaking rule are out the window and, under rule 19, each ship involved must manoeuvre to avoid a collision.
You may want to look at my earlier post and to some of Lumber posts above also. Remember that at sea, we deal with relative tracks, that is there is a resulting track that is the effect of the combination of both ship's movement. It is that resulting track that determines many situations. One such effect is that, as a general result but not always, two ships on a collision course will create a resulting "relative" track that will be on a constant bearing from one another. As I described earlier, when that constant bearing is at or near the cut off point for being in an overtaking or crossing situation, it is sometimes difficult to assess the situation. That is why Rule 13 states that if you are not sure, you should act as if overtaking.
Does that resolve everything? No, not necessarily.
For instance, the Rules - ALL the Rules - apply when there is a risk of collision. If no risk exists, then no rule applies. But things don't stay static at sea and situations evolve from normal operation of the vessels. What if (and I am speculating here, so don't take any of this as being the situation) the destroyer (D) was steaming along, was seen by the Container ship (CS) on its port bow, and the CS calculated no risk as they would pass the D with a mile and a half CPA (closest point of approach), but then, at three miles separation, the D made a 15 degrees planned alteration of course to starboard, creating the risk of collision? Now we are all supposed to pay attention while at sea, but in practice, merchant ship owners are cheap, so there is likely only a single officer on the bridge and a helmsman, who is only paying attention to his heading, not traffic. So they fail to notice the new circumstances until it's too late. Etc.
Also, there are other rules applicable that can come into play, such as Rule 17 (a) and (b): Basically, when it becomes clear to you that the vessel that does not have the right of way is not manoeuvering, the stand on vessel may take any action it sees fit to avoid the collision (i.e. it is relieved from the obligation to stand on its course and speed), when it is clear that no action by the vessel who must give way will avoid the collision by itself, then the stand on vessel must also manoeuvre to avoid the collision. These two rules combined are some times referred to as the "there is no excuse for a collision at sea" rules ;D.
Then, you have to take into consideration Rule 2 on general responsibility, which is the good mariner's practice rule. Was there a breach of it here? Who knows at this time. But a sub (b) of that rule states: "In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." Now, more junior naval officers may not think in such terms at this point of their career, but as I have indicated above, Arleigh Burke destroyers are "stealthy" radar signature ships and that is certainly a ship limitation I would take into consideration - together with the fact that as a warship I may not be exhibiting the lights of a ship my size (for us in Canada, many UK warships too, and I don't know about the Arleigh Burke but suspect it is the case, we show a single masthead light - which would normally be associated with a ship smaller than 50 meters in length) and I am not sending out AIS info identifying me as a destroyer - in thinking about how I must be perceived by traffic around me. I would then take that into consideration in planning my own actions.
Anyway, FJAG, all this to say that it may not be as simple, clear or straightforward as Fox news makes it sound and the actual application of the rules at sea is not always clear and unambiguous, so until all the facts are known and clearly established, it is better not to cast a final judgement on liability, if any, of either party involved.Â
