The issue in this case was the apportionment of liability for a collision involving two fishing vessels. One vessel, under the command of Hogan, was in the process of laying lobster traps in a northerly direction while the other vessel, under the command of Buote, was proceeding westerly. Buote argued the collision was Hogan’s fault as Buote had the right of way pursuant to Rule 15 of the Collision Regulations. Hogan, on the other hand, said he had the right of way as he was a vessel engaged in fishing pursuant to Rule 3. The Court held that Hogan, although laying traps, was not restricted in his ability to manoeuvre and therefore Rule 3 did not apply. The Court ultimately found Hogan was 75% at fault and Buote 25% at fault.