"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Think about that for a moment, and imagine being on a jury presiding over
these two cases:

1) Recreational boat, throwing an enormous wake, plows through a group of
small, anchored boats carrying fisherman, one mile outside of the normal
channel, in nobody's way. Someone's killed or injured.

2) Freight ship in the St. Lawrence River travels at sufficient speed to be
controllable for the prevailing wind & current conditions, in the normal
channel, obeying all rules. A small recreational boat gets too close to the
wake, someone's tossed overboard and drowns.

Would you (and I specifically mean YOU) assign blame to the pilot of the
freight ship in the same way you would with the moron in the first example?

I as a juror would prefer to point the blame where it lies. We all know
that wakes are an unavoidable fact of life. Unfortunately, when the
judge charges the jury, he will explain the law to them. It's not that
uncommon for a judge to overturn a jury's decision, especially when
they have been swayed by emotion and common sense.
I agree with you totally. I'm just stating a fact of law. "A vessel
operator is always responsible for any damage caused by the vessel's
wake." Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no exclusions or
exceptions.
The lack of an extra seaman did not capsize that boat.

John

John

"John" wrote in message
oups.com...
I as a juror would prefer to point the blame where it lies. We all know
that wakes are an unavoidable fact of life. Unfortunately, when the
judge charges the jury, he will explain the law to them. It's not that
uncommon for a judge to overturn a jury's decision, especially when
they have been swayed by emotion and common sense.
I agree with you totally. I'm just stating a fact of law. "A vessel
operator is always responsible for any damage caused by the vessel's
wake." Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no exclusions or
exceptions.
The lack of an extra seaman did not capsize that boat.

John

John


I doubt it'll be found that another boat's wake was the primary issue,
either. If the wake was so big, it should've affected some of the smaller
boats which came to help the victims of the capsized vessel. But, it didn't.
So, that points to faulty boat handling.

good point

"John" wrote in message
oups.com...
good point


Maybe I'll be a trial lawyer when I grow up.

good point

"John" wrote in message
ps.com...
good point


Maybe I'll be a trial lawyer when I grow up.

The new theory the feds are looking at is the fact that even though the
number of people was below the legal limit, the boat was over weight.
The passenger limit on a boat is based on each passenger weighing 150
lbs.

John wrote in message
oups.com...
I as a juror would prefer to point the blame where it lies. We all know
that wakes are an unavoidable fact of life. Unfortunately, when the
judge charges the jury, he will explain the law to them. It's not that
uncommon for a judge to overturn a jury's decision, especially when
they have been swayed by emotion and common sense.
I agree with you totally. I'm just stating a fact of law. "A vessel
operator is always responsible for any damage caused by the vessel's
wake." Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no exclusions or
exceptions.
The lack of an extra seaman did not capsize that boat.

John


Recent news suggest a theory that the boat was overloaded, weight-wise.
Seems the passenger capacity number of 50 is based on criteria that is over
40 years old.

Eisboch
John