• The week in pictures
• Recommended reading from the editorial team

Dear readers,

"Why don't you go home!" With a bright red head, the owner of one of the sunken sailing yachts in Kiel-Schilksee shouts at passers-by who have come to see the wrecked vessel. His wife stands next to him, crying.

This experience is still in my bones as I sit at my desk again on Monday and find a suggested topic in my e-mails: "Property obliges - what owners must do before a storm".

A good suggestion. We actually ran a story like this recently. Author Leon Schulz took on the matter in issue 20 of YACHT, which was published on 20 September, almost in time for the dramatic events on the night of 20/21 October 2023. the topic on yacht.de Moreover, it was already taken up on 7 August.

A few days after the storm surge of the century in the Baltic Sea, however, the proposal now gives me pause for thought, and specifically because of its justification: the discussion arises as to whether some owners were perhaps a little too nonchalant in their handling of the situation. A lot of damage could easily have been avoided if they had taken the time to look after their ship or paid someone to do so if necessary. Now damage has occurred "that is causing all our insurance premiums to rise because some people didn't think it was necessary".

When I read the email, I can't help but think of the couple from Schilksee, who really didn't give me the impression that they hadn't taken care of their boat. I remember the days before the storm, when many boats were moved and double lines were deployed in my harbour. And the morning after, when it became clear that these efforts were often simply not enough. And I realise how difficult it is for me to write a reply to the email with the suggested topic.

The problem can be quickly summarised. It is a question of the scope of the owner's obligations and the limits of culpability in the event of a breach of these obligations.

On the night of the storm, when the wind gradually began to die down, we discussed the classification of what had happened with our colleagues.

Of course, a comparison was also made with 1989, the year in which a small low pressure system on its way eastwards from England took an unpredictable detour to the north, bringing it close to a high pressure system over southern Scandinavia that was intensifying at the same time. The dramatically increasing air pressure contrasts suddenly led to a hurricane over northern Germany. Several marinas resembled a battlefield afterwards, with the Kiel Fjord area particularly affected, especially the Wendtorf marina.

The big difference between this hurricane, as a result of which around 500 yachts were severely damaged and more than 100 sank, and today - as I argued in the late-night chat - was that it came as a complete surprise. No forecast had predicted the weather at the time.

This time was different. Meteorologist Sebastian Wache had already predicted here on yacht.de on Thursday, almost like a protocol what awaits us.

However, if you have never experienced such a scenario, our news group was told, it is hardly possible to imagine exactly what the forecast wind speed from the relevant direction in combination with a flood of the century would mean at your own berth.

I could only agree, my trouser legs were still wet from being on my own boat. I couldn't have imagined the outcome of the forecast weather conditions either. I did try to imagine what would happen to my boat and reacted accordingly; I even deliberately did more than I initially thought was necessary. But in retrospect, I have to admit that my worst fears fell short of what I eventually experienced. And today I realise that I could have done more.

I am sure that many of the owners affected have experienced a similar situation, regardless of whether they have suffered damage or not.

The many examples in which neighbouring harbours had completely different damage balances due to minimal differences, such as a different angle of the pier to the wind, show how difficult it was to make a careful assessment for the night from Friday to Saturday.

However, without a concrete idea of what to expect, preparation is difficult. At what point do you need more than the mooring lines on board? When does the duty of care require the ship to be moved to another berth?

The question of what can be expected of a conscientious, averagely experienced sailor is not least about this concrete idea. Whether he acted carefully or can be accused of negligence. Can it be assumed that he could have imagined what would happen when he read the forecasts before the weekend?

The answer is only easy for me in cases where owners did not take care of their ship at all, even though they could have done so. Whether out of carelessness or because the calculation that the insurance company would pay out led to convenience. I can understand their annoyance at being reimbursed for their damage. But I doubt that this applies to many owners.

All other cases must be assessed as individually as the damage itself. And in most cases, the owners must be given credit for the fact that it was hardly possible to imagine what the prognosis would mean for the harbour in question.

Nobody had any experience of the combination of a hurricane-force storm and a flood of a century over a long period of time at the respective berth. And I am firmly convinced that imagining the result was simply beyond anyone's imagination.

Of course we should now come to terms with what has happened and learn lessons from it. But we shouldn't point the finger at each other.

Lasse Johannsen,

Deputy Editor-in-Chief YACHT

Click to see through

The week in pictures:

Recommended reading from the editorial team:

• Click here for all previous "YACHT Week" columns