BoatBanter.com - Salvaging or scavenging?

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Salvaging or scavenging? (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/77734-salvaging-scavenging.html)

Salvaging or scavenging?

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
US Code TITLE 46 Subtitle II Part A CHAPTER 23
§ 2301. Application

Except as provided in section 2306 of this title, this chapter applies
to a vessel operated on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States (including the territorial sea of the United States as described
in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988) and, for a
vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas.

...

§ 2304. Duty to provide assistance at sea

(a) A master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance
to any individual found at sea in danger of being lost, so far as the
master or individual in charge can do so without serious danger to the
master’s or individual’s vessel or individuals on board.
(b) A master or individual violating this section shall be fined not
more than $1,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

Bingo. You answered both my questions. For those living in States without
a
good Samaritan law this creates an interesting dilemma. The federal law
says
you have to render assistance, and the state law says that if you render
assistance and you are later found not to have done so as carefully as a
prudent seaman would have done you're liable to the person you were
trying
to help.

Oh, so this was a quiz. I thought you didn't know and needed help looking
it up. Now you're claiming you knew the answer all along and were just
testing us. 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.

Dave needs a lot of help.

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

Salvaging or scavenging?

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:40:24 -0500, Jeff said:

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

Well, we were talking about a good Samaritan _law_.

So, can you direct us to a lawyer that understands this stuff? You
already admitted that you don't.

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.

Dave, could you explain why " whoever in good faith provides emergency
(and sometimes non-emergency) medical services shall not be civilly
liable unless their acts constitute wanton misconduct.", constitutes a
"Good Samaritan Law", but, "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" does not? They look pretty
similar to me, one says "not civilly liable" the other "is not liable
for damages", what's the difference?

Cheers
Marty

Salvaging or scavenging?

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:04:14 -0500, Jeff said:

You
already admitted that you don't.

Which post was that?

You needed help understanding the Lloyd's Contract. You couldn't find
the law requiring the we come to the aid of vessels in distress. And
don't try your lawyer double talk that it was just a quiz; we all know
that's bull****.

Salvaging or scavenging?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:13:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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?

Obviously more than you had.

Well, I should hope so! Perhaps you need a few more years to be proficient?
Seems like you're really stretching here Dave. I gave you the pointer to the
reg, but you can't seem to understand. And, I haven't been to law school...
well, I went to the library a few times. :-)

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

Salvaging or scavenging?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:58:35 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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?

Obviously more than you had.

Well, I should hope so! Perhaps you need a few more years to be
proficient?
Seems like you're really stretching here Dave. I gave you the pointer to
the
reg, but you can't seem to understand. And, I haven't been to law
school...
well, I went to the library a few times. :-)

Sorry, Jon, but you've gone off into the realm of the irrational rant
again.

You're the one who went to law school. How about enlightening us instead of
trying to insult me... no, that's too much to ask.

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

Salvaging or scavenging?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:56:59 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

How about enlightening us instead of
trying to insult me..

Pot: kettle.

But I wouldn't try to insult you, Jon, I'd insult you.

So far, it seems, you're not able to enlighten us with your lawyerly
experience. I wonder why.

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

Salvaging or scavenging?

Dave wrote:

It's in the standard of care. Legally, there's a vast difference between "as
an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent individual would have acted under the
circumstances" and the absence of "wanton misconduct." In the first case
you're liable if in hindsight someone finds that despite the best of
intentions you made a minor error. The second says you're liable only if you
screwed up and it looks like you really didn't give a ****. It's often easy
to get a jury to find that if you had been a bit more careful you wouldn't
have made the particular mistake. It's much harder to get them to find that
you really didn't care.

The first is the rule that applies if there's no good Samaritan law. A law
like the second is designed to encourage you to jump in and help without
fear that you won't have to pay millions because some Monday morning
quarterback came up with a theory about how you could have been more
careful.

Thanks Dave, I guess as a lay person one reads "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" as
providing indemnity, but I guess that's not the case. Is it any wonder
that some take a dim view those practicing the legal profession?

Cheers
Marty

Salvaging or scavenging?

"jlrogers±³©" wrote:
When is it salvage and when is it stealing?

It's salvage when either the owner agrees to pay a salvage award ie
payment for service based on difficulty, not based on the value of the
vessel and/or goods saved OR the vessel has been abandoned, and the
would-be salvor meets all the obligations of a person(s) undertaking
salvage operations. This latter topic would be worth exploring, since
a lot of people have rather odd ideas about what "salvagers" can get
away with (much less curious misconceptions about the obligation to
aid fellow seafarers in peril, and what the intent of a "Good
Samaritan" law is).

An interesting topic, thanks for starting this thread JL

-signed- Injun Ear (formerly known as Eagle Eye)

Salvaging or scavenging?