Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on January 17, 2018, 07:34:02 PM
-
Usually I gripe about everybody suing everybody else, but this seems like both a legitimate lawsuit and an appropriate and not crazy amount. I'm surprised the one guy didn't drown. No life jackets and it looks like he was wearing non-flotation waders without the chest strap.
Now I'm just waiting fro the Mike Irwin/Jamis joke about the one guy not being able to see over the bow. =D
https://youtu.be/agWmkZYu31Q
http://www.foxnews.com/great-outdoors/2018/01/17/fisherman-who-jumped-into-river-to-avoid-oncoming-motorboat-sues-helmsman.html
-
NBB*
* Navigation By Braille
-
I don't know if a lawsuit is appropriate. It looks like the boating equivalent of a traffic accident.
-
To continue the car crash analogy, if a driver couldn't see over the dash and had vision problems, I don't think he would get much sympathy in court.
By the way, those prop marks through the boat looked pretty scary.
-
"Bryan Maess filed the suit against Marlin Lee Larsen, accusing him of boating while distracted by his cell phone. But Larsen denies the allegations and told investigators he couldn’t see over the dash of his boat because he was sitting down. The 75-year-old uses a motorized scooter when he’s on land."
WTH was he operating a boat anyway? :old:
-
"Bryan Maess filed the suit against Marlin Lee Larsen, accusing him of boating while distracted by his cell phone. But Larsen denies the allegations and told investigators he couldn’t see over the dash of his boat because he was sitting down. The 75-year-old uses a motorized scooter when he’s on land."
WTH was he operating a boat anyway? :old:
I don't see the counterclaim to the accusation of being distracted by using your cellphone of that you couldn't see over the dash of your boat, to the point that you run over another craft that would have been obvious from several hundred yards out, to really help matters.
That's a bit like saying you weren't driving sleepy, you were driving drunk.
I don't know if a lawsuit is appropriate. It looks like the boating equivalent of a traffic accident.
Why wouldn't a lawsuit be appropriate? You know that lawsuits happen all the time with traffic accidents, right? They're just normally resolved by the insurance companies of the accused.
That said, insurance might work differently on the water, they, at a minimum, have their boat to replace and probably things like the cell phones they had on them when they went into the drink, as well as punitive damages against a guy operating a vessel recklessly. Plus, he has a nice big boat that might be a little scrapped up, but is still probably worth some money.
-
So he admits steering the boat blind, then says, it's ok, nobody died, no biggy, why are they suing me?
Quoted from the comments. That is pretty much my first thoughts.
-
I don't know if a lawsuit is appropriate. It looks like the boating equivalent of a traffic accident.
The article did not mention if the owner of the big boat or his insurance paid for any damages. If not, then a lawsuit is certainly appropriate. The quotes from the guy make it sound like he is denying any responsibility. Not sure if that is true or not.
-
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/01/chilling_video_fisherman_jumps.html
This is the link to the source article. It doesn't have much more info, but I think the FoxNews article was a shortened version. It did go a bit more indepth on the injuries. Sounds like the boat may have been pushed their way after they jumped.
I find it odd the guy is pleading Not Guilty, but he has already admitted he couldn't see where he was going and a witness said he was using his cell phone.
-
Wow.
-
RULE 5 Look-out very vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision
RULE 6 Safe Speed Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: (a) By all vessels: (i) the state of visibility; (ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; (iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; (iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter of her own lights; (v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; (vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water. (b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar: (i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; (ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; (iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; (iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; (v) the number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; (vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity
https://navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf
His excuses aren't going to fly in court, the navrules are cut and dried. The video also made me miss NW Oregon but then I remembered what 8 years in a temperate rain forest is like! =D
-
The article did not mention if the owner of the big boat or his insurance paid for any damages. If not, then a lawsuit is certainly appropriate. The quotes from the guy make it sound like he is denying any responsibility. Not sure if that is true or not.
That is my thought, also.
If, the insurance doesn't pay and if the driver doesn't pay, then a lawsuit would be appropriate. I just don't like the idea that the first thought everyone has is to file a suit.
-
Negligence pure and simple and I think he should have his ass sued off.
There is very little margin for error operating a boat like that.
-
That is my thought, also.
If, the insurance doesn't pay and if the driver doesn't pay, then a lawsuit would be appropriate. I just don't like the idea that the first thought everyone has is to file a suit.
Given the comments about the guy being dismissive about the injuries(nothing major!) the loss of a boat, and such, I figure he's trying to not pay. Thus lawsuit appropriate.
Also, I think that lawsuits are inappropriate if you don't first try to get payment directly.
-
Probably apropos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTw5pk6dcX0
-
Why I never boat on popular waters on holiday weekends. Even no wake/10hp max lakes can be crazy on those weekends.
-
That's what deck guns are for.
-
That's what deck guns are for.
Good shoot. That boat was obviously a threat.