On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:51:44 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On 3 Oct 2005 09:13:49 -0700, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:


Jim Carter wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Most were elderly. Cause is suspected to be the wake from a larger,
passing
boat.
But 48 or 49 people on a 40 ft boat?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/...oat_overturned
Eisboch

How could this happen on a calm lake? No waves or wind action at all. Does
anyone have the details?

Initial reports say it was hit by the wake of a larger tour boat. If
this turns out to be true, look for the operator of that larger boat to
pay dearly.

I heard about this on the morning news and a big deal was made over no
"criminal" violation..... I read that as "here comes one hell of a
civil lawsuit."

Here's a little more current information:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2033952005
a couple things: "as he tried to steer out of them".
HUH? out not into?

and

"because there was no evidence of intoxication"
Opportunities to clear him are now gone. another
investigation gets off on the wrong foot.
....thehick

One would hope that if a wake was a significant factor, the operator
(company) would be held liable, in both criminal and civil actions. A high
profile, multi-million dollar lawsuit, or jail time, would do wonderful
things for safe and courteous operation in the future.

But I'm afraid this will be chalked up as an "accident". I have never heard
of an operator actually paying for damage caused by a wake.

Is anybody familiar with an operator being held financially or criminally
responsible for his (her) wake? I would love to see a reference or link.

Sal's Dad


How could this happen on a calm lake? No waves or wind action at all.
Does
anyone have the details?

Initial reports say it was hit by the wake of a larger tour boat. If
this turns out to be true, look for the operator of that larger boat to
pay dearly.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:06:21 -0400, Sal's Dad
thought it necessary to say:

One would hope that if a wake was a significant factor, the operator
(company) would be held liable, in both criminal and civil actions. A
high
profile, multi-million dollar lawsuit, or jail time, would do wonderful
things for safe and courteous operation in the future.


Here's the latest report I heard:

From the website's description of the report:

All Things Considered, October 3, 2005 · Transportation safety officials
have begun searching for clues in the sinking of a tour boat in upstate
New York's Lake George. The Ethan Allen apparently listed suddenly --
possibly caused by the wake of a larger boat -- before it capsized Sunday,
killing 20. Brian Mann from North Country Public Radio reports.

There is a link to the audio at this address:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4934507

From the New York State Boater's Guide:

[BEGIN QUOTED PORTION]

When no speed limit is posted, vessels must always be
operated in such a fashion so as not to endanger others. A
vessel must be able to stop safely within the clear space
ahead. A vessel operator is always responsible for any damage
caused by the vessel’s wake.

[END QUOTED PORTION]

(Link: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/boating/...ters_guide.pdf)

The report I heard on All Things Considered indicates that no boat was
close to the Ethan Allen, but any of us who have been out there know that
wakes can travel a long way, a long time after the boat has passed.





In other news,

I haven't been posting here much, but I'm still around. My father passed
away in May and I haven't had the boat out all year.

And Opera Rocks:

I can created nested rules, such as

If newsgroup header contains rec.boats
And body of message contains Harry Krause

kill file the sucker.

Just for an example.

--
http://frankwbell.no-ip.info/weblog
Updates daily. Worthwhile updates occasionally.
tivoli1 is a spamtrap. Email at frankwbell at comcast dot net.
Opera Rocks! http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim Carter wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Most were elderly. Cause is suspected to be the wake from a larger,
passing
boat.
But 48 or 49 people on a 40 ft boat?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/...oat_overturned
Eisboch

How could this happen on a calm lake? No waves or wind action at all.
Does
anyone have the details?

Initial reports say it was hit by the wake of a larger tour boat. If
this turns out to be true, look for the operator of that larger boat to
pay dearly.


They may get off somewhat, by stating, a 40' tour boat with 50 people aboard
should handle normal wakes found on the lake. And the fact that there is
a normally operating ferry with a large wake, should require the tour boat
to take care for such.

Gene Kearns wrote:



I think this was probably a mistake, but the captain can (likely)
prove that he had never tested positive, He must, by law, be in a drug
testing program.

Wild conjecture, on my part, but I think when all the truth is told,
this is going to be an open and shut case of a larger vessel swamping
a smaller vessel with a "perfect storm" sized wake.

Some witnesses are being quoted as saying the boat was riding bow low /
stern high just before the wave & roll...

I suspect that there will be a minimum of an eight figure settlement
reinforcing the old mantra that, "you are responsible for your own
wake."

The press/media is all over this. Covered by CBS/NBC/ABC evening news,
all with some depth... but they can't get the story right at all.
Everyone is saying there were no other steamships in the area - I could
have told you that from LA even though I'm only 1 1/2 hrs away...

I also predict that the swamped vessel will be found guilty of
contributory negligence in not requiring all of those aboard to
*already* be wearing their life jackets.


No, they won't. It wasn't required locally or federally. The $$
involved will be of such an amount anyway that PFD use / non-use
probably will not come into the forefront.

Rob

Bill McKee wrote:




They may get off somewhat, by stating, a 40' tour boat with 50 people aboard
should handle normal wakes found on the lake. And the fact that there is
a normally operating ferry with a large wake, should require the tour boat
to take care for such.



AND, the other large boats on the lake belong to the same operator...

Rob

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:05:55 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And the fact that there is
a normally operating ferry with a large wake, should require the tour boat
to take care for such.


Not according to any Admiralty Law I am familiar with.... do you have
any other information.....?

--

_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
Homepage*
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

Nope, just when you go in front of a jury, and try to put all the blame on a
big boat with big wake, that you did not see the boat, and that 50 people on
a 40' boat is safe in an area where there is a large ferry operating. The
jury may find the tour operator more negligent. Whatever, there will be
large payouts in the future.

"trainfan1" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:




They may get off somewhat, by stating, a 40' tour boat with 50 people
aboard should handle normal wakes found on the lake. And the fact that
there is a normally operating ferry with a large wake, should require the
tour boat to take care for such.

AND, the other large boats on the lake belong to the same operator...

Rob

Says tour operator and his insurance company and maybe his assets are going
to do all the paying.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:50:33 +0000, Gene Kearns wrote:


I also predict that the swamped vessel will be found guilty of
contributory negligence in not requiring all of those aboard to *already*
be wearing their life jackets.

Also, New York requires at least two crew for any boat carrying more than
21 passengers. One report has the boat with non-fixed chairs. As the
boat listed, everything slid to that side. I'm thinking the swamped
vessel will have a considerable level of negligence by the time this is
over.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4306250.stm

Sorry, but the bottom line when it comes to wakes was stated above:

"A vessel operator is always responsible for any damage
caused by the vessel's wake."

It does not matter how far his wake went. If his wake is that large,
then he needs to go slower to control his wake.

Even if the 40' boat had the required personnel, it still would have
capsized. An extra man on that boat would not have saved 20 people. If
they fulfilled the other requirements i.e. number of passengers,
equipment, etc, their liability is greatly reduced.

The seats weren't fixed? I'm pretty sure that's not a requirement.

John