Skipper's responsibilities/liability

Agreed, this guy is a piece of work. You don't have to pay money to be a decent person and at least follow up on your crew's injury.

Andrew, I don't know what you're learning. Until someone posts the results from this lawsuit, the rest is just random assorted opinion. Such as:

In anything that you do in life, there are risks. If you have stuff that you value (including your health and well being for the rest of your life), you should insure yourself (including insurance for liability). God knows, no two lawsuits seem to end the same way.

Mike

Guys (and Gals),

First let me state that I do carry insurance on my boats and I would have gone to the hospital ...

Now if it can be proved that the skipper in question had prior knowledge of the frontcrossbar to being defective ... he's in trouble ... if he had no prior knowledge it will make the issue of accessing/assigning fault more difficult. But as this skipper was previously a

professional rigger

an argument can be made that he should have had additional knowledge that he should have used to access the P19's seaworthyness ... this could be a interesting case study.

FYI: Realize there are 50,000,000 people in the United States that do not have any medical coverage currently ... that is approximently 1 in 6 persons .... maybe we as citizens of the USA need to fiqure out a way that provides medical coverage to everyone like they have been able to do in all the other

western industrialized

countries??? (Just want everyone to think about this fact)

Secondly, just as a sidenote and (I have had the

discussion

w/ several unfriendly waterfront landowners and police over the years) ... International Maritine Law states that a skipper is responcible for the safety of his crew and vessel .... and due to equipment failure or weather conditions may seak

safe haven

at any place the skipper deems neccesary. So if your crew is injured or your boat is broken as skipper you can land anywhere and seek

safe haven

for your crew and vessel.... so the wreckage of the P19 could have been brought ashore anywhere it could be dragged to.

Now let's just think also of the responcibility of the race commitee and

INSURANCE

.... if Small Craft Advisories were

Up

, do you think that the race commitee can be sued??? Or maybe the RC should be respouncible to inspect all boats for insurance coverage????

Lots of

sticky

questions here ....

HarryMurphey

[o in order to sail with a well covered skipper all crew must:
Show proof of health insurance
No... skippers liability will cover any injury to the crew.

Pass a basic seamanship course (in case the skipper is incapacitated and the crew must sail the boat to shore)
DUH! don't you make sure your crew can turn the boat around and get you if the conditions are dicey! Otherwise... I am not going out.

pass a swim test
DUH!

be certified in first aid/CPR
Not necessary

wear necessary safety equipment (pfd, helmet, shoes, gloves)
DUH would you take anyone on your boat without the right gear!

know how to operate VHF, Flares, PLB, GPS
DUH... if you need this safety margin for that day ... you betcha I show them how it all works and have them try it!

sign a liability waiver
Waiver's are useless in a court of law.

Pete's right (did I just say that).....we all need to sail singlehanded boats!

No... we all need to use common sense and good seamanship and protect ourselves with liability insurance from expensive disasters.

That is not true at all... it establishes an understanding of risk. It is true you can not waive neglagence... but if there was no neglagence... a waiver could save you from paying out damages... thats why ski mountains have a disclaimer on every lift ticket, as do every sporting event ticket... etc...

I agree with your clarification...

In the end, the Skipper, the PRO, and the Regatta Chairman/Sailing Club will all be sued. The lawyers will get something out of all of them, but you have to be prepared as a skipper for this, whether accident, or negligence.

I thought there was a similar issue in the Sydney-Hobart race that year (was it like, 2001? or earlier?) where lots of people died due to capsized boats, etc. when a huge typhoon came through the fleet during the race. There were many lawsuits against lots of skippers who lost crew, and the RC as well, for not delaying the start until after the storm had passed. I don't know what the final outcome was for the RC or the skippers in question.

Like I said before, anyone can sue anyone for -any- reason, real or imagined. Been there, done that.

Lee:

You are entirely correct and part of being a responsible skipper is carrying insurance regardless if you race or not, it not only covers what happens on your boat but any property or personal injury caused to others; ie t-boning your friend's boat. In the case you presented, even if the crew had health insurance, she would likely have out-of-pocket expenses for deductibles, coinsurance, copays, and lost wages. God forbid if there is rehab or partial disability relating to her injuries. Odds are that she will find an attorney, they will sue and prevail because boats are expected to be seaworthy in conditions that they were sailing in. Hopefully, he has enough assets to cover the judgement. They could always garnish wages. Too bad debtors jail does not exist for this creep because he deserves it.

Not carrying insurance on your boat is like not having life insurance when you are a parent of young children, totally unacceptable and irresponsible. Pennywise and pound foolish!

Kris Hathaway
F-16
WRCRA/WRSC

I would think that the RC/PRO CAN be held at least partially liabile for incidents as a result of starting races in extreme weather.

I am not an attorney, but part of the PRO's responsibility should be to have a rough idea of the design and performance envelopes for the vessels in the regatta. If the OBSERVED weather conditions are beyond that envelope, it could be considered negligence on the part of the PRO to start or continue a race.

Would it be a good idea to start a race when lightning is striking all around? Most likely not... Why? Because you are posing an undue risk to the participants...

Would it be smart to start a race when it is blowing well over 20 kts, knowing that most of the boats aren't designed for that kind of wind? I know most sailors could handle it, but what if there were an accident and injury?

Could the prosecuting attorney argue that the PRO should have known the conditions were dangerous and postponed the race? Would the PRO have expected a greater than average chance for boat damage and/or participant injury? I would think this may have traction to a jury...

That being said, I still think it's the skipper's primary responsibility to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew.

don't all entry forms applications have to sign and agree that they must sail under their decision and not to sail in conditions out of their abilities? this is a disclaimer meant to release the RC of liabilities.

Not sure why, but I feel like I need to be the hijack police here...

If you really want to go down this road, please start a separate thread regarding PRO liabilities, this thread is about skipper/crew.

EDIT: For one thing, if you're the PRO and try to NOT race Hobie 16s when it's blowing 25 knots, you'll get laughed out of the event.

Mike

Thanks, the issue is the skipper here. BTW it was only blowing about 18 gusting to 21 on a lake, no less.

I think my boat is in pretty decent condition but if someone would ask me to
give a guarantee that the mast wont come down in a race I don't think I can.
Can anyone? Would I be liable if a pin breaks?
The sport is not without risk, IMHO that's part of the fun.

IMPO to start if you're not covered by insurance for your catamaran your an idiot plain and simple. For what these policies cost and the peace of mind they offer it is almost a no-brainier.

Secondly, if you plan to take others on your boat, as with it is in aviation you're the owner/operator/pilot in command. You are responsible for the safety of people that are on your boat, the safe operation of that boat, and the boat is maintained to insure it is safe to use in the conditions you want to use it in. No excuses.

As for those wanting to sue race committees etc…. you’re a *ing scumbag plain and simple. Race committees are not in the business of putting your life in jeopardy and from what I have observed always decide on the side of prudence. The SKIPPER should know the limitations of their sailing skills, their crew's sailing experience, and condition/limitations of their boat. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Understandably * happens that we have no control over, but sitting there laughing about your boat and showing no concern for the injured crew member would have resulted in a verbal butt whupping should I have been present, but then again, would this have changed the outcome?

I spent a fair amount of time in Indonesia and grew to like the way they do it. You can do anything you want to do, if something happens, it's your deal. Unless of course someone does something to you with bad intent, then the law is swift and often carried out by a mob of villagers. It seemed to work out pretty well.

I strapped on a junky rented BC and regulator and went diving for $10, no papers to sign, liability wavers etc. Gave him $10 and swam out to the reef. Try that in the states. If something happened to me, they probably would have cremated me there and that would have been that.

I rented a kayak, and went down the Ayung river. The guy took my dough and said,

have a good holiday.

No chance here.

I rented a surfboard and paddled out at double-overhead Balian rivermouth with nothing more than a wave and a smile.

There has to be a happy medium where people take more responsibility for their own actions, otherwise we start missing out. Getting on a boat can be potentially dangerous.

Talking about suing the PRO for running a race in high wind is shameful. Don't we have the ability to go in if we aren't comfortable in the conditions?

We tried to start a youth sailing program here and found it to be virtually impossible due to the requirements. I think that our overly-litigious society is one reason that the sport of sailing has a hard time gaining a foothold in the mainstream.

I get worried every time a cat gets wrecked in the surf here. One mention of suing the harbor and the whole works could be shut down.

The skipper should have had insurance though.

J

If you bought the pin from Surf City and it broke would I be liable? Potentially. How about if I got the pin from Harken, would they be liable? If you had a lawyer that wanted to go that route, sure. That's why our system is kind of screwed I think.

J

Its pretty clear that anyone can be sued for anything. Heres a nice gem....

Article in Insurance Journal

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a parent can't execute an injury liability waiver for a minor child when the liability release involves participation in a commercial, as opposed to community or nonprofit, activity.

Such releases are more in the interest of the commercial interests requiring them than they are in the best interests of the public or the child who may be injured, the court found.

It ruled that a commercial release was unenforceable against a minor's estate in the case, Scott Corey Kirton vs. Jordan Fields.

Bobby Jones was the primary residential parent for his 14-year old son, Christopher. In 2003, the father took Christopher to Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park to ride his all terrain vehicle (ATV). To gain entry to the facility and be allowed to participate in riding the ATV, Bobby Jones, as Christopher's natural guardian, signed a release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk and indemnity agreement.

While attempting a particular jump, Christopher lost control of his ATV, causing himself to be ejected. Tragically, he hit the ground with the ATV landing on top of him. He got up, walked a short distance, then collapsed and died.

Subsequently, Jordan Fields, representing the estate of Christopher Jones, filed suit for wrongful death against Spencer Kirton, Scott Corey Kirton, Dudley Kirton, and the Kirton Brother Lawn Service, Inc. as owners and operators of Thunder Cross Motor Sports.

Jones admitted that he fully understood that he was waiving the right to sue for the death of Christopher and forever discharging the Kirtons for any and all loss or damage in signing the release.

The Kirtons argued that the claims raised by Fields were barred by the release and waiver executed by Jones on behalf of his son.

The trial court granted the Kirtons' motion for summary judgment on the wrongful death claim, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact because the release executed by Jones on behalf of his minor child, Christopher, barred the claim.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court, finding that that there was no statutory scheme governing the issue of pre-injury releases signed by parents on behalf of minor children and that the courts do not have the authority to

judicially legislate that which necessarily must originate, if it is to be law, with the legislature.

The Kirtons asserted that a parent has a fundamental right to make decisions relating to the care of a minor child, and that right includes executing a pre-injury release on behalf of the minor child.

Fields contended that pre-injury releases are invalid because neither the common law nor the Legislature has given parents the authority to waive these substantive rights of a minor child.

Although there are jurisdictions where pre-injury releases executed by parents on behalf of minor children have been found enforceable, the state's high court noted that the decisions where they have been upheld involved a minor's participation in school-run or community-sponsored activities.

The state Supreme Court decided that the absence of a statute governing parental pre-injury releases demonstrates that the Legislature has not precluded the enforcement of such releases on behalf of a minor child. However, it found that wider public policy concerns cannot allow parents to execute pre-injury releases on behalf of minor children.

The court said there is

injustice

when a parent agrees to waive the tort claims of a minor child and deprive the child of the right to legal relief when the child is injured as a result of another party's negligence. The result benefits the commercial enterprise more than the child, his family or the state:

When a parent executes such a release and a child is injured, the provider of the activity escapes liability while the parent is left to deal with the financial burden of an injured child. If the parent cannot afford to bear that burden, the parties who suffer are the child, other family members, and the people of the State who will be called on to bear that financial burden. Therefore, when a parent decides to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, the parent is not protecting the welfare of the child, but is instead protecting the interests of the activity provider. Moreover, a parent's decision in signing a pre-injury release impacts the minor's estate and the property rights personal to the minor. For this reason, the state must assert its role under parens patriae to protect the interests of the minor children.

The court said that business owners owe their patrons a duty of reasonable care and must maintain a safe environment for the activity they provide. If pre-injury releases were permitted for commercial establishments, the incentive to take reasonable precautions to protect the safety of minor children would be removed, according to the court. While a commercial business can take precautions to ensure its child patrons' safety and buy insurance to protect itself, a minor child cannot insure himself or herself against the risks involved in participating in that activity, the court said.

Amen Brother.
I agree 100%. All you litigous folks keep this up and we'll all be out of a hobby.

Wow, that is going to put a huge crimp on kids racing anything; BMX, Motocross, Equestrian Jumping, etc. I wonder if kid's sailing programs are also going to feel the impact.

Is there a distinction between

skipper

and

owner

? I usually crew the boat that I own.

The skipper in this case was an Ahole, no doubt. You can't legislate or sign a waiver against that, they exist in all sports and always will. You can, however, shoot them, just don't get caught...

I am not a legal beagle here but my take on this is if you own the boat, you're on the boat, you're responsible

Owner/Operator

What if the driver causes a situation that has nothing to do with the condition of the equipment or decision to sail or not sail?

I think that if the owner is on board then they are the skipper/captain. The coast guard will always ask who is the captain when they approach a vessel on the water. If the driver screws up... it's the captain's fault..

I prefer to use the terms helm and sheet rather then skipper and crew to account for a division of responsibilities that you choose to use on your boat.

Read this to get really confused.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=72984

As one of those boats in the '07 Tybee that opted not to sail on that day - I had no problem what so ever with the RC decision to start. People made it out that day, but my team mate and I made the painful decision that our experience was lacking for that one on that day. It was our decision to make - other people were up to the challenge, I would not have deprived them of the opportunity to excel. Ironic, given what happened on the next leg...

On the case at hand, even if the crew had medical insurance it would be likely that her provider would try to recover costs from the insurance on the boat. In the case of no boat insurance they may go after the owner.

By the way, there's something also called the Jones Act (if I remember right) that states that a captain is responsible for the acts of the crew while on shore. This was originally implemented for commercial ships to recoup damages from marauding crews on shore leave. However, I seem to recall that it has been applied in cases pertaining to racing crews in town during races. Yet another thing to consider...

It could be argued that the driver is the skipper regardless of who owns the boat.. if you are drunk and let someone drive you home in your car... and they crash and kill someone... you (the passenger/owner) are not at fault

We had a 15 year old kite boarder get blown into power lines in a squall. He got burned and then fell 25 feet into the street (hit the divider actually). i learned the lawyers want to included everyone in the lawsuit, even the guys who sold the kite to him... even though the equipment was not bad, the kid was sailing on the windward side of powerlines, the parents should not have allowed him to participate is such a dangerous sport, and he went out in adverse conditions, where extreme weather was predicted...

Like the earlier post, I think the skipper is ultimately responsbile for all those on his/her boat, similar to an aircraft pilot.

Accidents happen, stuff breaks, weather turns sour, errors are made. Insurance is there to help provide that peace of mind knowing the skipper can

do the right thing

and take care of anyone or anything injured during prudent operation of the vessel.

As for the PRO responsibility, would you think that an America's Cup team would challenge (or sue) the PRO if they conducted a race beyond the design parameters of the boats in the race? I know there was an s* fight about the minimum windspeed...

The T-500 is more of an adventure race for those with a certain level of competency. Buoy racing, in my mind, is somewhat different in that those with little or no experience are welcome, and it is in that context that I feel the PRO should exercise a bit more discretion with respect to course set-up (not setting the gate width at 1 boatlength, minding the wind/sea conditions, etc.)

Personally, I can't think of any reason I'd sue a PRO, since it's my judgement to participate in the first place. But if I were pro- or semi-pro and this regatta somehow influenced my paycheck, I'd probably have a lot to say if the PRO was making bonehead decisions (like sending a single-handed fleet out in 25 kts, knowing most would break down/crash and the PRO doesn't have enough safety vessels. That would seem negligent on the PRO's part because of the potential for increased chance of accident/injury)
Yeah, and setting a buoy in less than 6" of water is funny to watch, but not funny to drag the boat across! <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

Oh, and those waivers are nice to have, but most of the time don't really work (look at BKs earlier post - note that was for commercial operations, and not non-profit or community stuff)

Is this your opinion, or are there court cases that back this up? I'm pretty sure that as the owner, you are responsible (can be held liable) when you allow someone to use your car. I'd almost be willing to bet money on it, but again, no two lawsuits end the same way...

Mike