Salvaging or scavenging?
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


And what would those brake lines be leaking, Joe?

anything in the lines before they were all cut.


Hey Scotty, what do they call the Air Brake endorsement
for you guys?


''Air Brake endorsement'', I guess.




Up
here it's a "Z" (zee to you, zed in the frozen wastelands)


All I know is there's an 'A' and a 'B' license. I was
'Grandfathered in' when they started the testing bull****.

Scout would know.

Scotty

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

On Jan 25, 9:09 am, "Scotty" wrote:

..Such as?

OK Snotty, I forgot big trucks have air brakes...you happy?

Joe

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com..
..


On Jan 25, 9:09 am, "Scotty"
wrote:

.Such as?

OK Snotty, I forgot big trucks have air brakes...you
happy?


Ecstatic !

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:39:23 -0500, Jeff said:

The Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971 contains
a "Good Samaritan" provision that became part of Chapter 23. Of
course, The Good Samaritan Doctrine is not free license to act
completely incompetently. Even under state laws you can be liable if
your actions can be shown to be negligent. So the question is, how
much grey area is there between "negligent" and "ordinary, reasonable,
and prudent"?

TITLE 46 Subtitle II Part A CHAPTER 23 § 2303
(c) An individual ... gratuitously and in good faith rendering
assistance at the scene of a marine casualty without objection by an
individual assisted, is not liable for damages as a result of
rendering assistance or for an act or omission in providing or
arranging salvage, towage, medical treatment, or other assistance when
the individual acts as an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent individual
would have acted under the circumstances.

Unfortunately that's not a good Samaritan law.

So why is it that there are hundreds of web sites that call this a
"Good Samaritan Law"? Can you perhaps point us to one that does
satisfy your requirements?


It simply codifies the common
law standard that causes the problem in the first place. Any halfway decent
trial lawyer can dream up some theory of negligence if an attempted rescue
turns out badly. A good Samaritan law would protect the person rendering
assistance unless he is guilty of wanton misconduct. So as it now stands you
have a choice. Risk a $1,000 fine for not rendering assistance, or trust
yourself to the tender mercies of the plaintiff's bar.

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:50:40 -0500, Jeff said:

So why is it that there are hundreds of web sites that call this a
"Good Samaritan Law"? Can you perhaps point us to one that does
satisfy your requirements?

Here's the first one I came across in a Google search.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=21915

Calling a law such as the one you described a "Good Samaritan Law" is the
kind of thing the trial lawyers might get away with selling to a gullible
legislature, but it would be pure hokum. It does nothing more than state
what the law is in the absence of the statute.

Your answer sounded like pure hokum.

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:06 -0500, Jeff said:

Here's the first one I came across in a Google search.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=21915

Calling a law such as the one you described a "Good Samaritan Law" is the
kind of thing the trial lawyers might get away with selling to a gullible
legislature, but it would be pure hokum. It does nothing more than state
what the law is in the absence of the statute.
Your answer sounded like pure hokum.

Perhaps to you it did. It wasn't.
How would you know? Do you have a degree in hokum?

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:06 -0500, Jeff said:

Here's the first one I came across in a Google search.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=21915

Calling a law such as the one you described a "Good Samaritan Law" is
the
kind of thing the trial lawyers might get away with selling to a
gullible
legislature, but it would be pure hokum. It does nothing more than
state
what the law is in the absence of the statute.
Your answer sounded like pure hokum.

Perhaps to you it did. It wasn't.
How would you know? Do you have a degree in hokum?


That would be Ellen.
--
jlrogers±³©

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:22:42 -0500, Jeff said:

Your answer sounded like pure hokum.
Perhaps to you it did. It wasn't.
How would you know? Do you have a degree in hokum?

Do you have a degree in law?
Why do you ask?

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

TMI


The TMI is that you seem to be obsessed with your own sexuality.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Salvaging or scavenging?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:21:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Where do you find this requirement?

You're required to render assistance to boats in distress unless it puts
you, your crew, or you boat in peril.

Let me ask the question again, since it seems you didn't understand it.
Where do you find this requirement?

46 USC 2034 I believe. Time for you to study up?


Just because you have a contract doesn't mean you're limited
to what you'll insist on collecting.

Simply a wrong statement of the law.

So, what you're saying is that if I have a contract with you, and I decide
not to enforce it, I'm liable somehow????

I'm saying that while you might agree to accept less than the contract
provides, you're generally not entitled to demand more than the contract
provides.

Well, wow. That took how many years of law school to figure out?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com