"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.