On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:15:40 -0400, DSK wrote:

With all due respect, it is well to keep in mind that the
operator of a vessel making a wake is 100% responsible for
the damage done by his wake. It is exactly the same as a
person with a gun being held responsible for where his
bullets end up.


That is not how the "wake rule" works.

You are not always held 100% responsible for your wake.

OK Capt. Bill, I'll bite.

Just how DOES the "wake rule" work? And please, if you can, provide
citations or links? Apparently I have misunderstood all these years; I
would welcome an opportunity to be educated.

Sal's Dad


"Capt. Bill" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:15:40 -0400, DSK wrote:

With all due respect, it is well to keep in mind that the
operator of a vessel making a wake is 100% responsible for
the damage done by his wake. It is exactly the same as a
person with a gun being held responsible for where his
bullets end up.


That is not how the "wake rule" works.

You are not always held 100% responsible for your wake.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:51:16 -0400, "Sal's Dad"
wrote:

OK Capt. Bill, I'll bite.

Just how DOES the "wake rule" work? And please, if you can, provide
citations or links? Apparently I have misunderstood all these years; I
would welcome an opportunity to be educated.

Sal's Dad


At least here in Florida from what I've been told by LE you are held
to a "reasonable person" standard.

In other words if your motoring down the ICW in a non-restricted speed
zone and your wake travels lets say, a 1/2 mile out and behind you,
and tips over a kayak-er that you couldn't see or be expected to know
was there you most likely would not be held liable.

"Capt. Bill" wrote
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:51:16 -0400, "Sal's Dad" wrote:

OK Capt. Bill, I'll bite.

Just how DOES the "wake rule" work? And please, if you can, provide
citations or links? Apparently I have misunderstood all these years; I
would welcome an opportunity to be educated.

Sal's Dad


At least here in Florida from what I've been told by LE you are held
to a "reasonable person" standard.

In other words if your motoring down the ICW in a non-restricted speed
zone and your wake travels lets say, a 1/2 mile out and behind you,
and tips over a kayak-er that you couldn't see or be expected to know
was there you most likely would not be held liable.

This doesn't sound too bad at first, but as I think about it, I'm not so
sure I understand what it really means.

Seems to me, it is reasonable to assume people will be on and near the
water, in boats (or swimming, or playing in tidal pools...) appropriate to
the conditions they are likely to encounter. If you are going to change
those conditions, creating a new and hazardous series of breaking waves,
you could reasonably expect to have an impact...

I'm not familiar with the ICW, but from what I've heard it's pretty much a
congested Interstate; perhaps anybody playing on the edges should
reasonably expect rough water all the time. Where I am (on a "major" tidal
river) there might be one or two vessels that create a major wake in a
week... not sure what a "reasonable person" (whether wake-making, or
inconvenienced party) should expect...

Can anybody offer clarification?

Sal's Dad

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:11:48 -0400, "Sal's Dad"
wrote:

I'm not familiar with the ICW, but from what I've heard it's pretty much a
congested Interstate; perhaps anybody playing on the edges should
reasonably expect rough water all the time.

Exactly right.

A reasonable person does not go boating in a craft not suited to
normal conditions.

Let's try some perspective on what I was originally trying to
communicate about the wake.

You don't go driving on the road unless you are prepared to accept
breathing diesel exhaust from buses as being just one of those things.
However, if a bus rudely cuts you off in traffic and you end up stuck
behind it, you're going to feel differently about breathing his
exhaust than you normally would.

--

Roger Long

In article ,
Capt. Bill wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:51:16 -0400, "Sal's Dad"
wrote:

OK Capt. Bill, I'll bite.

Just how DOES the "wake rule" work? And please, if you can, provide
citations or links? Apparently I have misunderstood all these years; I
would welcome an opportunity to be educated.

Sal's Dad


At least here in Florida from what I've been told by LE you are held
to a "reasonable person" standard.

In other words if your motoring down the ICW in a non-restricted speed
zone and your wake travels lets say, a 1/2 mile out and behind you,
and tips over a kayak-er that you couldn't see or be expected to know
was there you most likely would not be held liable.

As it happens, the captain of a freighter transiting the C&D canal up
here a few years ago was prosecuted for serious damage, as I recall
including a death, due to his wake.

In Admirality Court, the "reasonable person" standard is adjudicated by
those who know what a professional mariner should know. It's not like
civil court.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/