Wayne.B wrote:
On 18 May 2006 04:02:03 -0700, wrote:

Am I not getting this straight? the "tow" company invited themselves to
pull the damaged vessel out of the way, NOW they are wanting "Salvage"
rights to it????

That's how they make a living unfortunately. The routine towing jobs
for members just cover basic expenses as I understand it.

One of the more interesting insights to this game that I've seen was
out east at Cuttyhunk Island about 4 years ago. An almost new 40+
Carver had been put on the rocks at speed by a clueless owner and was
taking on water at a rapid clip. USCG responded and put pumps
onboard, as did SeaTow. As they were being towed into Cuttyhunk
Harbor the SeaTow boat remained firmly attached, even at the dock, and
then spent a good bit of time with USCG ensuring that their
participation was duly noted in the report. You can be sure that a
significant salvage claim was soon to follow even though USCG had done
most of the heavy lifting.


JERKS!

yes, which is the law whenever there is immenent danger to property,
life or the enviroment.

It has been maritime law for many 100's of years.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
yes, which is the law whenever there is immenent danger to property,
life or the enviroment.

It has been maritime law for many 100's of years.

From the way the report reads, there wasn't really any "immenent danger
to property, life or the enviroment"

or, thats at least how I see it.....

Tim,

I agree with you, but the fact that a salvage company was involved (in
a minor way) with the removal of a boat from a marina fire provide them
with a shred of possibility that they can recover in a salvage claim.

My guess is the tow company is hoping to settle out of court, and I
would also guess the insurance company will settle out of court.

I don't believe their is a snow ball's chance in hell, that the
insurance company, or boat owner will recover anything in actual
damages or punitive damages from the tow company.

Gene,
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully Bill will
keep us informed of the progress.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com REMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...?ylccsd&coll=7

Hope the judge awards damages to the boat owner.

What damages?


Punitive.

Maybe. That's speculative.


sigh

You just don't get it, do you? The owner hasn't suffered ANY damages
yet. Let alone punitive.


Actually *you* don't.

Bill said "Hope the judge awards damages to the boat owner."

Notice the key word *hope*.

You then said "What damages?", to which I replied "punitive".

You then went into a legal tirade.

Do you understand the word "punitive"?

Do you understand the word "hope"?

Go start a fight with someone else as I am done with this thread.



Actually to get punitive damages, they also have to have actual damages.
Is
the law. I sat on a jury where that was explaned to us. But he has
occured
damages, in hiring a lawyer.

Not true. He hired a lawyer on his own accord.


He hired a lawyer, to protect his assets. If the SeaTow people had not made
the claim, he would not have to shell out for legal costs. Therefore, he
has suffered damages. And lawyers fees can add up to a lot of damages
quickly.