Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

re-psycled

3 dead in N2E

Recommended Posts

It's the relevent training, the application of that training - all combines with the discipline and attention necessary to effectively use that training and experience.

 

 

LOL, yes, no doubt, sailing overnight down the cali coast is a lot like rocket science, requiring much specialized training, incredible discipline and vast experience, otherwise you might just motor right into one of those tricky islands!

 

 

... Remember that one comment from an "experienced" crew that didn't make this trip - we had won before and "kicked ass?" That comment could speak volumes.

 

Or not.

 

Each race is different. The year the guy was talking about, 2009, was a record setting race and the late Theo Mavromatis and his crew did indeed kick ass. You can't take that away from them, you cold heartless ignorant bastard.

 

From the NOSA site:

 

In 2009, the race started before spectators on Balboa Pier instead of just outside the entrance to Newport Bay. Winds blew steadily from start to finish at 9-12 knots, even in Todos Santos Bay near the finish line, and from an off-wind direction that allowed everyone to sail the rhumb (direct) line all the way. Of 260 starters, there were 257 finishers, and all finished by 4 p.m. Saturday, 19 hours ahead of the usual 11 a.m. Sunday cutoff time. The benevolent breeze allowed Doug Baker's Magnitude 80, an Andrews 80 from Long Beach, to set a race record for monohulls of 10 hours 37 minutes 50 seconds—7 minutes 3 seconds faster than the record of 10:44:54 set by Roy E. Disney's Pyewacket III, a Reichel/Pugh 77, in 2003.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its analogous to people that go skiing and die doing it.....Ski resorts have tree's in the middle of ski runs everywhere, and people still run into tree and die, if they were losing lots of $ from suits they would have closed those runs a long time ago... With the Ocean its not even the property of the race committee.....

 

 

Wow, somebody here gets it.

 

Amazing. Cool.

 

This is 'assumed risk' in its purest form and it's why ski resorts still exist in our modern day litigious society.

 

Speaking of skiing, that sport's 'extreme comps' are directly comparable to yacht races, just more risky, and guess what? They have various classes in these comps for the less skilled and no, there are no qualifications or seminars or anything beyond a basic pre-comp athlete's meeting going over the rules and regs. Competitors in these extreme ski comps die and are maimed on a regular basis, somehow though the competitions continue and the sponsors keep throwing down. The reason for this is grounded in the principle of assumed risk.

 

N. Coronado is a natural hazard, as natural as a tree off the side of a ski run. Racers and skiers assume the risk of collision with natural hazards.

 

Ski resorts in almost all the major US ski states have specifically lobbied for and received codified protection in the form of Mountain Sport Assumed Risk statutes. That's what the language on the back of our lift ticket means.

 

US Sailing should do the same.

 

There is no waiver of liability for gross negligence for skiing...

 

"William Rothstein also skied Snowbird back in 2003, and he slammed against a retaining wall off the Fluffy Bunny run. He was seriously injured and sued, claiming the wall was covered with snow and unmarked. Too bad, said Snowbird, you released us from liability when you signed a waiver that absolves us from negligence. The trial court agreed with Snowbird.

 

But last week, the Utah Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that those waivers are void as against state public policy. Click here for the opinion. Utah law now aligns with ski-rich states Colorado and Vermont, which have found liability releases to be void.

 

The court held that a statute, called the Utah Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, was meant to make insurance affordable by protecting ski resorts from being sued over dangers routinely involved in the sport. But the law still holds them accountable for negligence, the court ruled. The majority said that because the law’s purpose was to ensure reasonable insurance rates, ski resorts should not be able to use waivers “to significantly pare back or even eliminate their need to purchase the very liability insurance the Act was designed to make affordable."

 

There are noteable differences between skiing and a boat race. First, each ski area uses a uniform "Skier Responsibility Code" and supports it with signage, trails are marked, trails are mapped, hazards are marked, there are standards of diligence regarding avalanche control, there are professional ski patrol employees monitoring the mountain, lift posts and snowmaking equipment is all wrapped, there are professional ski schools offering class or individual training from professionals that are ridgedly trained and pass exacting standards. Dangers are all pointed out in advance. The "waiver" even notes that death is possible. These all constitute an industry wide standard of care that resorts must adhere to.

 

All the statutes taht you refer to did was to reduce those suits for folks who broke a leg, or whatever, from skiing. And that was very useful as those suits had become a real burden for resorts to live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they would, and you're on.

 

ok --- I'll make it simple and take a case of "Stella", what _would_ you want ?

 

...... Not saying that the families wont try and possibly go after the "race committee" just don't think enough for courts to find anywhere ~ near~gross negligence

 

 

+1

 

JW Black beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there is no need to call upon lack of experience to explain this accident.

 

we have countless examples in sailing, and other activities, of experienced people making bad decisions..., mistakes..., errors of judgment..., whatever..., that lead to fatal accidents.

 

from what I have read of the captain, he had sufficient experience to lead a boat on this trip, even if the others were not what we would call experienced.

 

we will probably never know what sequence of events caused this accident.

 

Nevertheless, it's hard to escape the conclusion that mistakes by the captain were ultimately responsible for the accident - perhaps a simple navigational error, perhaps putting the wrong crew member on watch..., likely it was some combination of mistakes.

 

in the end, the question of whether the captain had "enough" experience, becomes a matter of opinion. This is not a difficult trip.

 

To me, the lesson of this tragedy (and some others) is not that inexperienced people make bad mistakes, so because I am experienced..., I am OK.

 

Rather, it is that even people who (probably) know what they are doing can make serious errors, so I better be always vigilant against dumb mistakes that can kill people.

 

 

But it undermines the foundation of SA's superior ego's if this could happen to someone other than the "inexperienced" or, clutch the pearls, a "cruiser".

 

Anyone wanna bet there was at least one boat in the fleet with a less experienced crew that had a great time on this race with nary a problem? If we accept the premise the race organizers have successfully enticed many incompetent cruisers to participate, there had to be some cherrys in the bunch doing the race for the first time, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no need to call upon lack of experience to explain this accident.

 

That's the irony in DoucheRag's obnoxious and never-ending rant about these recently deceased guys.

 

He derides them for being in a class where you can use your motor and not be forced to drop out, ignoring the fact that in some years you get out there and the wind dies and stays dead, and you just say fuck it and turn on the motor to get to the party. Other years the N2E race can be a thrilling sail end to end, as it was in 2009 when Mavromatis and his crew "kicked ass," winning their class.

 

So the late Theo Mavromatis and crew were skilled racers and proven winners in a year that recorded the fastest time for a monohull in the race's 65 year history. They got into trouble a few years later while motoring! What we seem to have here is not a problem with experience, but rather the opposite, complacency born of confidence and previous success.

 

Sorry DoucheRag, the facts speak for themselves and the theme of your disrespectful 100+ post rant has been completely debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think lack of relevant experience was likely involved in plotting a course straight through an island, why do you think it happened?

 

Sheer carelessness?

 

Is that really a more charitable explanation than the person who plotted it not having the experience? And a mistake being made of a more experienced person not checking the work. Perhaps from having retired early (feeling unwell? Exhausted for unrelated reasons? We will never know) or another reason or "just" an omission when he ordinarily would have checked that person's work.

 

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Of course, an experienced person can make a careless and dumb mistake. We don't know who plotted the course, and never will. If you want to take it as an experienced person pulling a bone-headed, killing-everyone move, that's your prerogative. But for you to claim that it's those who think experience likely was in play are the ones with an insulting explanation, is rather ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there is no need to call upon lack of experience to explain this accident.

 

we have countless examples in sailing, and other activities, of experienced people making bad decisions..., mistakes..., errors of judgment..., whatever..., that lead to fatal accidents.

 

from what I have read of the captain, he had sufficient experience to lead a boat on this trip, even if the others were not what we would call experienced.

 

we will probably never know what sequence of events caused this accident.

 

Nevertheless, it's hard to escape the conclusion that mistakes by the captain were ultimately responsible for the accident - perhaps a simple navigational error, perhaps putting the wrong crew member on watch..., likely it was some combination of mistakes.

 

in the end, the question of whether the captain had "enough" experience, becomes a matter of opinion. This is not a difficult trip.

 

To me, the lesson of this tragedy (and some others) is not that inexperienced people make bad mistakes, so because I am experienced..., I am OK.

 

Rather, it is that even people who (probably) know what they are doing can make serious errors, so I better be always vigilant against dumb mistakes that can kill people.

 

 

But it undermines the foundation of SA's superior ego's if this could happen to someone other than the "inexperienced" or, clutch the pearls, a "cruiser".

 

Anyone wanna bet there was at least one boat in the fleet with a less experienced crew that had a great time on this race with nary a problem? If we accept the premise the race organizers have successfully enticed many incompetent cruisers to participate, there had to be some cherrys in the bunch doing the race for the first time, right?

 

You guys continue to distort the point. Experience, as it applies to a situation like racing a boat, at night, in busy commercial lanes, means both the knowledge base of all the skills required in sailing, sufficient time on the water (under supervision, if necesssary)to learn to apply those skills, all combined with the discipline and attention to detail to actually use those skills and experience. And that's what most of us have been talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think lack of relevant experience was likely involved in plotting a course straight through an island, why do you think it happened?

 

Sheer carelessness?

 

Is that really a more charitable explanation than the person who plotted it not having the experience? And a mistake being made of a more experienced person not checking the work. Perhaps from having retired early (feeling unwell? Exhausted for unrelated reasons? We will never know) or another reason or "just" an omission when he ordinarily would have checked that person's work.

 

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Of course, an experienced person can make a careless and dumb mistake. We don't know who plotted the course, and never will. If you want to take it as an experienced person pulling a bone-headed, killing-everyone move, that's your prerogative. But for you to claim that it's those who think experience likely was in play are the ones with an insulting explanation, is rather ironic.

 

You are too intelligent to be posting on SA...

 

Ban Naracet!

 

Off with his head!

 

Free DoRag!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no waiver of liability for gross negligence for skiing...

 

Right, a ski area can't negligently make the activity more risky, say by adding a retaining wall in the middle of a run and failing to mark it or pad it and fall back on the waiver, just as NOSA might be held liable if it parked 10 unlit race committe boats end to end across the finish line on a pitch black night.

 

However, what we are talking about here in the case of the Aegean is a specific risk of harm that is inherent in the sport itself and this defense does not depend on waivers. N. Coronado island is a natural obstacle, directly comparable to a tree on a ski run. Case law solidly supports the rule that participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and the rationale behind this rule has nothing to do with consent.

 

Further, even if NOSA were somehow found to be negligent (and clearly they weren't) under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) §2(B), the application of assumption of risk to negligent conduct committed during sporting events can also be viewed as a means of preserving the utility of the product that the plaintiff claims is defective – the sport itself.

 

There is no case here. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think lack of relevant experience was likely involved in plotting a course straight through an island, why do you think it happened?

 

Sheer carelessness?

 

Is that really a more charitable explanation than the person who plotted it not having the experience? And a mistake being made of a more experienced person not checking the work. Perhaps from having retired early (feeling unwell? Exhausted for unrelated reasons? We will never know) or another reason or "just" an omission when he ordinarily would have checked that person's work.

 

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Of course, an experienced person can make a careless and dumb mistake. We don't know who plotted the course, and never will. If you want to take it as an experienced person pulling a bone-headed, killing-everyone move, that's your prerogative. But for you to claim that it's those who think experience likely was in play are the ones with an insulting explanation, is rather ironic.

 

You are too intelligent to be posting on SA...

 

Ban Naracet!

 

Off with his head!

 

Free DoRag!

 

We don't know who plotted the course, but we do know who was responsible for making sure it was safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistakes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no need to call upon lack of experience to explain this accident.

 

That's the irony in DoucheRag's obnoxious and never-ending rant about these recently deceased guys.

 

He derides them for being in a class where you can use your motor and not be forced to drop out, ignoring the fact that in some years you get out there and the wind dies and stays dead, and you just say fuck it and turn on the motor to get to the party. Other years the N2E race can be a thrilling sail end to end, as it was in 2009 when Mavromatis and his crew "kicked ass," winning their class.

 

So the late Theo Mavromatis and crew were skilled racers and proven winners in a year that recorded the fastest time for a monohull in the race's 65 year history. They got into trouble a few years later while motoring! What we seem to have here is not a problem with experience, but rather the opposite, complacency born of confidence and previous success.

 

Sorry DoucheRag, the facts speak for themselves and the theme of your disrespectful 100+ post rant has been completely debunked.

 

At this point might as well throw in the Bacon Jokes

 

and merge this thread w the SA Getting Sued thread

 

If this thread had a SPOT tracker the trail would point Straight Down-Hill

 

After the Blip where it Jumped the Shark Oh Sooooooooooo Far back

 

 

w all 4 recovered Nothing to learn sitting on the bottom or shore line

 

don't know what can be learned from someone recovered after a week of sitting underwater but if you could tell a Heart Attack or BAC or ?????????????? would help

 

So many things could have happened - But most likely eliminating the auger into the N Coronado Island and at the very least 3 should be alive Today

 

 

What we can take away so far:

 

Keep more than 1 on duty at all times

 

Keep a vigilant Lookout at all times

 

 

That alone would have saved the above in almost any situation that might have happened (that did or could have happened)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistkes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

 

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistakes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

So you consider the most likely explanation to be that all hands had the "training, discipline, and experience" necessary to not plot a course straight through the island, but did so anyway and also failed -- with all that -- to not strike the island.

 

That's your right.

 

But it's my right to consider it absurd for you to claim it's insulting to think that the person plotting the course more likely did not have the training, discipline, and/or experience, and other factors/events/decisions led to this person's error then remaining uncorrected.

 

And as you say, each can decide for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go DoucheRag, a few random shots from this year's N2E.... they probably all have the wrong size ensign as well... LOL

 

All NASBOAT - and your point is....?

 

Don't you just love the dinghy hanging off the transom of one of those fine vessels? Real racer, that one. Or, how 'bout all the dodgers - maybe they add sail area going downwind?

 

Hey dude, pics of those pigs underscores my point!

 

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

The courts didn't have anything to do with a boat getting some face time on an island. No court rooms or lawyers (at least I hope not) in DJL.

 

No one is talking about either the rock or the boat getting sued....

 

If anyone is going to get sued it will be the fat insurance policy purchased by the company that owns the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was being trained by a very experienced delivery skipper, the one thing he really planted in my head was that you do NOT fall asleep on your watch, you do not, period. "If you even feel a little bit sleepy, please wake me up. Don't be afraid to wake me up for any reason." Those were his words, and I woke him up for a rising moon once because I was still a noob and couldn't figure out what it was, and he told me "good job." We did thousands of offshore miles together, double handed, sometimes for a week, and sometimes with nothing but a compass (new boat deliveries). There are a lot of things this cat doesn't know about sailing, but knowing how to stand a watch, and how much rides on that, is not one of them.

Funny Tab, you sound like one of my delivery crew from way back; I taught her the same thing and...she did the same thing. Black night, tiny wedge of light on the horizon getting bigger and bigger. Never met anyone who could hand-steer a course as true as she could, tiller or wheel. Hardly any XTE at the end of her watch, night or day. Impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

 

LOL, splitting hairs now are we? In practice the captain and crew decide if they are experienced and qualified enough to make the trip safely. Therefore you are saying Theo was negligent.

 

Besides, even if NOSA required racers to qualify, Theo Mavromatis and crew would have undoubtedly made the cut based upon their 2009 and 2011 winning efforts. That's how these things work, and if you yourself had ever actually competed in risk sports you'd already know this.

 

Your point has been rendered moot and the only possible legal case I see on this thread would be your libel of a proven qualified captain and crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, so you comment with your opinions on other people's ideas, including that they are "insulting" or "cheesy," but for others to post their opinions of your ideas is "laughable."

 

Gotcha.

 

What a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

 

LOL

 

Your Sarcasm Meter appears to be broken. Please recalibrate it and check back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IQ meter is working perfectly well: it shows you pegged firmly in the "Idiot" range.

 

You are a total waste of time. A troll that shall be fed no further, at least not by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

The courts didn't have anything to do with a boat getting some face time on an island. No court rooms or lawyers (at least I hope not) in DJL.

Don't bet on it. It's early yet. Maybe in nine or ten months you can begin to have hopes, but not big ones. My money is on there being one or more lawsuits.

I'm not saying there will not be lawsuits, I think there will, most definitely, Aegean as well as LSC.

 

I was defining "end result" as 4 sailors passing, not the courts getting into action.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, so you comment with your opinions on other people's ideas, including that they are "insulting" or "cheesy," but for others to post their opinions of your ideas is "laughable."

 

Wow, you sure are dense. My point was that you took a minor part of my argument, DoucheRag's alleged disrespect, and made it the focus of your response. That's what I meant by a really cheesey way to debate, and it had nothing to do with specific opinions offered.

 

The IQ meter is working perfectly well: it shows you pegged firmly in the "Idiot" range.

 

You are a total waste of time. A troll that shall be fed no further, at least not by me.

 

As he skulks off waving a white flag. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of sailors have made it safely to Ensenada and beyond without the approval of NOSA or anyone else. Lexus or no Lexus, these guys wanted to sail to Ensenada. When the captain puts his ship to sea it's all him/her (and Murph and Darwin, but not NOSA), who has a hand in the end result. sad.gif

 

Best tell that to the courts - they might rule otherwise!

The courts didn't have anything to do with a boat getting some face time on an island. No court rooms or lawyers (at least I hope not) in DJL.

Don't bet on it. It's early yet. Maybe in nine or ten months you can begin to have hopes, but not big ones. My money is on there being one or more lawsuits.

I'm not saying there will not be lawsuits, I think there will, most definitely, Aegean as well as LSC.

 

I was defining "end result" as 4 sailors passing, not the courts getting into action.

 

Are you saying that NOSA does not have any duty to ensure their race is as safe as possible (as in, all entries are qualified)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper wink.gif

 

Good luck on suing the government.

 

(I know you knew that.)

 

On the insurance company: Quite likely there will be insurance payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper wink.gif

 

Good luck on suing the government.

 

(I know you knew that.)

 

On the insurance company: Quite likely there will be insurance payment.

 

At lease there is like 0% chance anyone would read this thread all the way to this point much less beyond

 

would have been nice to have a thread for paying respect to those lost & left behind

 

This most certainly/Sadly is/was Not that sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper wink.gif

 

Good luck on suing the government.

 

(I know you knew that.)

 

On the insurance company: Quite likely there will be insurance payment.

 

The insurance issue is an interesting one.

 

Whose insurance policy (I am not refering to life insurance here)would you be refering to? The owner's, the leasing company, NOSA, the race sponsors?

 

And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experience? Look at what Sukhoi's Chief Civil Test Pilot Alexander Yablontsev just did:

http://www.reuters.c...E8480LB20120510

 

They were most certainly awake, yet they just made the same fatal mistake.

There is no idea yet why they lost 4000', quite possibly an emergency, but the #1 rule in any emergency that is drummed into pilots heads is:

 

1. The pilot flying the airplane Must Keep Flying The Airplane and maintain situational awareness (especially knowing where the hell you are and what the hell you're pointed at).

Everybody else in the cockpit and anybody they can reach on the radio will work the problem and should try not to distract the pilot flying unless absolutely necessary.

The primary factor in most "Pilot Error" crashes is failure to follow this rule.

 

I completely agree with the whoever said that while knowledge and experience are certainly important, the most important thing is having the Discipline to actually follow the procedures at all times.

Not saying I always do that myself, but I try.

 

In regards to the Aegean:

 

I have absolutely experienced the "Station Wagon Effect", motoring at 6.5 knots in zero true wind for 3+ hours (so I could get home in time to keep my job).

While I don't believe it could kill someone in an open cockpit it definitely made both of us queasy and really, really, REALLY want to take a nap.........

Woke up with a splitting headache the next morning.

It would be interesting for somebody with a Hunter 376 light off a smoke flare taped to a boathook and hold it right near the exhaust port in the same wind conditions Aegean was experiencing to see where it all ends up.

 

Still conjecture at this point but I agree the primary cause was hitting direct to the finish waypoint on vector chart zoomed out enough to make the island "disappear" and leaving it at that zoom level.

I was advised when I got my first plotter to plan all routes in raster mode (because things never disappear) then navigate the route in vector mode with a guard depth set and Zoomed In enough to see all detail.

Yes, I have paper charts and yes, they're always open to where I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

 

Tell me, why is it that you respond to his nonsense?

 

I don't understand that. Help me out. And by responding to him, you are just asking for another silly argument, which maost of us are tired of reading.

 

Hence, the "ignore" feature. Upper right hand corner. It's there for a purpose. Use it. Learn to love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper

Whaaaa???

 

You channeling Bronny now?

 

For all the good all those fancy electronics did for them, they may just as well have navigated by a crystal-wearing palm reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more on the DMV for registering the Boat or the Insurance Co. that covered it or the USCG that let it leave US waters - All giving the crew a seance of being proper

Whaaaa???

 

You channeling Bronny now?

 

For all the good all those fancy electronics did for them, they may just as well have navigated by a crystal-wearing palm reader.

 

Navigation by palm reader - hey, that's funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?

Civil suit: Marina Sailing versus the heirs of the owner for recovery of expenses getting a Hunter "seaworthy" and loss of revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

 

Tell me, why is it that you respond to his nonsense?

 

I don't understand that. Help me out....

 

LOL, let me help you out, he respondes to me for the same reason you did a couple of hours ago. Memory problems DR? Getting a little senile you old bigot?

 

 

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistkes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

 

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?

Civil suit: Marina Sailing versus the heirs of the owner for recovery of expenses getting a Hunter "seaworthy" and loss of revenue.

 

Interesting. Are you saying Marina Sailing owned the boat? I thought Aegean was owned by the skipper but leased to Marina for charters, but I don't really know. Anyway, I'm sure Marina had the boat fully insured.

 

Presuming a "wrongful death," I would think one of the crewmembers heirs might want to sue the skipper or NOSA (including all the officers and Board individually) or both. Or Marina sailing for chartering the boat - presuming it is found that the skipper (the charterer ?) was not experienced or knowledgeable enough to command a vessel under these circumstances.

 

Some of those actions might prove problamatic, as the exact circumstannces will never be known. The most viable suit appears to be a wrongful death and gross negligence claim against NOSA, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that NOSA does not have any duty to ensure their race is as safe as possible (as in, all entries are qualified)?

 

 

No, but you have to draw a line somewhere, or all the races would be run in a bathtub. Other than requiring entrants complete qualifying race(s) and meet MERs, the orgs duty to safety should be very limited, because that ultimate duty belongs to the captain. If we put all the burden on the org to run a safe race, racing as we know it will become extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?

Civil suit: Marina Sailing versus the heirs of the owner for recovery of expenses getting a Hunter "seaworthy" and loss of revenue.

 

Interesting. Are you saying Marina Sailing owned the boat? I thought Aegean was owned by the skipper but leased to Marina for charters, but I don't really know. Anyway, I'm sure Marina had the boat fully insured.

 

Presuming a "wrongful death," I would think one of the crewmembers heirs might want to sue the skipper or NOSA (including all the officers and Board individually) or both. Or Marina sailing for chartering the boat - presuming it is found that the skipper (the charterer ?) was not experienced or knowledgeable enough to command a vessel under these circumstances.

 

Some of those actions might prove problamatic, as the exact circumstannces will never be known. The most viable suit appears to be a wrongful death and gross negligence claim against NOSA, et al.

 

"And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?"

 

This is how its going to go down -- The boat surely had insurance by the Owner -- The heirs to the Owner will get insurance money for agreed to value of the boat. There is also personal Liability on boat owners insurance -- The heirs to everyone will split that 4 ways. If there are other insuances available (say owner had an Umbrella policy) that will be split between the heirs also.

 

If there is other insurance around, lets say NOSA has liability insurance, then I'm sure they'll get a payout on what they can get there.

 

All this will be negotiated between lawyers and insurance companies. None of this will go to court, its not worth it for any party involved.

 

"The most viable suit appears to be a wrongful death and gross negligence claim against NOSA, et al.".... No way -- not at all -- I've still got 2 cases of beer saying this wont go to court or if it does ('cos ~anyone~ can file a suit -- even people here for rudeness on a sailing bulletin board.....lol) there wont be any judgment against NOSA -- for all the great reasons already mentioned -- Because all parties involved (including lawyers) know that the suit isn't going anywhere AND more importantly (other than said insurance money) there are no deep pockets and any time wasted ~trying~ to sue NOSA will be a waste and a lesson in futility ------ Kind of like trying to get all sailors on an internet bulletin board to all agree on something ------ it aint gonna happen....

 

Oh -yeah --- Remember I like Stella :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no waiver of liability for gross negligence for skiing...

 

Right, a ski area can't negligently make the activity more risky, say by adding a retaining wall in the middle of a run and failing to mark it or pad it and fall back on the waiver, just as NOSA might be held liable if it parked 10 unlit race committe boats end to end across the finish line on a pitch black night.

 

However, what we are talking about here in the case of the Aegean is a specific risk of harm that is inherent in the sport itself and this defense does not depend on waivers. N. Coronado island is a natural obstacle, directly comparable to a tree on a ski run. Case law solidly supports the rule that participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and the rationale behind this rule has nothing to do with consent.

 

Further, even if NOSA were somehow found to be negligent (and clearly they weren't) under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) §2(B), the application of assumption of risk to negligent conduct committed during sporting events can also be viewed as a means of preserving the utility of the product that the plaintiff claims is defective – the sport itself.

 

There is no case here. None.

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea of the workings of the legal eagle mind.

 

  1. A race is not a product, troll. Product liability law doesn't apply.
  2. What waiver did the crew agree to, troll? I've not seen this crew waiver of which you speak.
  3. The crew cannot unknowingly assume an unknown risk, toll. Assumption of risk requires that the risk be known or reasonably foreseeable.
  4. The crew did not assume the risk of incompetent and grossly negligent navigation, troll. Plotting an autopilot course onto or through dry land is inherently incompetent and grossly negligent at a minimum.
  5. Incompetent and grossly negligent navigation is not an inherent risk of the sport or of the course, troll. It may be an unfortunately common risk, but it is certainly not inherent.
  6. Accepting an entry from a competitor without assuring competent and reliable navigation is grossly negligent, troll. And the chain links to NOSA at this point.

Trial lawyers drool over the chance to litigate the defective issues posed by your argument. Their collapse makes juries think you're incompetent or that your client must be liable. Guess who pays in that case? Even a journeyman lawyer would make mincemeat of your propositions. I would not be surprised by a big settlement from NOSA and from the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that NOSA does not have any duty to ensure their race is as safe as possible (as in, all entries are qualified)?

 

Wow, even cruzers in the NASBOAT class read and are familar with RRS 4.

 

RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

All the reasons put forth (plus these guys raced and won a couple of times before), points to no way they win a case here of gross negligence or any such thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistkes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

 

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

 

Just curious about this point. How would NOSA go about qualifying almost 300 skippers plus their crew? I'm making an assumption that you're referring to the 4 souls who lost their lives - could be wrong - but it seems that's who you're referring to. Wouldn't one think that the 7 previous entries and 2 wins, plus the owner's 100T license, plus his participation in the pre-Olympics trials in Greece, plus the numerous other wins (not in "cruiser" class) with the same crew might "qualify" them, should NOSA have some method of "testing" the captain and crew? What would the criteria be for NOSA to qualify boats, captains and crews? Is this done elsewhere?

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

How many crew members signed it, troll? How many of them actually saw it and authorized the skipper to sign on their behalf? Surely you jest! Maybe I'll get someone digging for hidden assets. The case is getting so strong, I may just have to decline to settle and go for the big bucks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, but you have to draw a line somewhere, or all the races would be run in a bathtub. Other than requiring entrants complete qualifying race(s) and meet MERs, the orgs duty to safety should be very limited, because that ultimate duty belongs to the captain. If we put all the burden on the org to run a safe race, racing as we know it will become extinct.

 

Yeah, sure. of course.

 

But the issue needs to be put in perspective of the litiguous society that we live in today. A waiver of liability does not exonerate NOSA from the duty to avoid gross negligence.

 

Now, in context of today's reality, where is the line drawn? Is this incident gross negigence? What are the backgrounds of the NOSA group? Do they have adequate experience to run an event like this. Do they all even own boats?

 

Did they induce novice sailors to enter (and enhance revenue) with the NASBOAT Class?

 

If so, what did they do to ensure that all skippers and watch captains were capable of performing in a capable and safe manner?

 

What courses or training did NOSA implement to ensure that all boats and crew were reasonably safe?

 

What exactly is the duty, if any, of NOSA to advise as to the hazards of the race and ensure competence on all boats?

 

The very definition of "gross negligence" is an indifference and a blatent violation of, a legal duty to the rights of others.

 

So, were the rights of the crew violated if it can be shown they lacked the experience and knowledge as to safely participate in the race? What duty did NOSA have to ensure that all boats and crew were "safe." None? Some? Alot when death could be an outcome?

 

Is it not true that there are, in place, far more rigid standards for offshore races? If so, where is the line drawn - especially when NASBOAT classes are encouraged (in contrast to the pros on the Volvo)?

 

Was NOSA "indifferent?" well it certainly appears so if they didn't do anything proactively in response to marketing a NASBOAT class.

 

All good questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

All the reasons put forth (plus these guys raced and won a couple of times before), points to no way they win a case here of gross negligence or any such thing

 

You might want to look up "gross negligence." Not to mention the role the waiver will play in this situation.

 

Do you understand that the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence? The reason they do that is because it is against public policy to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea...

 

See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300-301. The Supreme Court held there was no liability, because the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care not to injure her; the court characterized the recreational sport activity they were engaged in as one of "primary assumption of the risk." Id.,at 321. Primary assumption of risk, as created by the California Supreme Court, prevents a claim of negligence from being heard by a jury because, when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

Trial lawyers have been trying to get the legislature to overide this case law for two decades, and yet it has solidly stood the test of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

Well I have seen "easier" Qualifying races that a skipper crew had to take before allowed bigger race. But no not really a pre-screening per se.

 

for instance, before I would ever be allowed into the Bermuda 1-2 I'd have to do a number of smaller shorter singlehanded overnight off shore races like the Around Block island one.

 

But from what I can tell the N2E is not exactly the Newport Bermuda race and would most likely be a qualifying race --- Its not like they had these guys sailing to Hawaii.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?

Civil suit: Marina Sailing versus the heirs of the owner for recovery of expenses getting a Hunter "seaworthy" and loss of revenue.

 

Interesting. Are you saying Marina Sailing owned the boat? I thought Aegean was owned by the skipper but leased to Marina for charters, but I don't really know. Anyway, I'm sure Marina had the boat fully insured.

 

Presuming a "wrongful death," I would think one of the crewmembers heirs might want to sue the skipper or NOSA (including all the officers and Board individually) or both. Or Marina sailing for chartering the boat - presuming it is found that the skipper (the charterer ?) was not experienced or knowledgeable enough to command a vessel under these circumstances.

 

Some of those actions might prove problamatic, as the exact circumstannces will never be known. The most viable suit appears to be a wrongful death and gross negligence claim against NOSA, et al.

 

"And who would you envision getting paid? The heirs of the owner, the heirs of the crew?"

 

This is how its going to go down -- The boat surely had insurance by the Owner -- The heirs to the Owner will get insurance money for agreed to value of the boat. There is also personal Liability on boat owners insurance -- The heirs to everyone will split that 4 ways. If there are other insuances available (say owner had an Umbrella policy) that will be split between the heirs also.

 

If there is other insurance around, lets say NOSA has liability insurance, then I'm sure they'll get a payout on what they can get there.

 

All this will be negotiated between lawyers and insurance companies. None of this will go to court, its not worth it for any party involved.

 

"The most viable suit appears to be a wrongful death and gross negligence claim against NOSA, et al.".... No way -- not at all -- I've still got 2 cases of beer saying this wont go to court or if it does ('cos ~anyone~ can file a suit -- even people here for rudeness on a sailing bulletin board.....lol) there wont be any judgment against NOSA -- for all the great reasons already mentioned -- Because all parties involved (including lawyers) know that the suit isn't going anywhere AND more importantly (other than said insurance money) there are no deep pockets and any time wasted ~trying~ to sue NOSA will be a waste and a lesson in futility ------ Kind of like trying to get all sailors on an internet bulletin board to all agree on something ------ it aint gonna happen....

 

Oh -yeah --- Remember I like Stella :D

 

Ah....no deep pocket? Are you knowledgeable about the financial status of the NOSA Board or Officers? It just takes one - look up "joint and several."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand that the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence?

 

Knight v. Jewett does not rely on consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

All the reasons put forth (plus these guys raced and won a couple of times before), points to no way they win a case here of gross negligence or any such thing

 

You might want to look up "gross negligence." Not to mention the role the waiver will play in this situation.

 

Do you understand that the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence? The reason they do that is because it is against public policy to do so.

 

"the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence"

 

I totally understand that very well --- I can sign anything and it can be over ruled in court (and yes understand the definition of 'gross negligence' very well) Its my position , taking all the information and circumstances as a whole, that there is no case here.... and if there is a case brought by some over zealous lawyer, then it will not be won against NOSA for gross negligence.....

 

So we have 2 different positions on what will happen -- only time will tell. When a certain amount of time goes by we will see what happens, but I am pretty sure if we don't see something by the end of this year filed against NOSA then we probably never will

 

in the mean time keep my Stella cold......:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistkes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

 

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

 

Just curious about this point. How would NOSA go about qualifying almost 300 skippers plus their crew? I'm making an assumption that you're referring to the 4 souls who lost their lives - could be wrong - but it seems that's who you're referring to. Wouldn't one think that the 7 previous entries and 2 wins, plus the owner's 100T license, plus his participation in the pre-Olympics trials in Greece, plus the numerous other wins (not in "cruiser" class) with the same crew might "qualify" them, should NOSA have some method of "testing" the captain and crew? What would the criteria be for NOSA to qualify boats, captains and crews? Is this done elsewhere?

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

First of all, it is not taken as a fact the experiences you mention. We need to learn the facts. I would say that if those assertions were true for the skipper, he would be deemed to be qualified. Now what about the qualifications of the crew to serve as watch captain, in the night, in hazardous conditions?

 

Remember that those stated qualifcations need to be verified. Does it make sense that a guy got a 100T CG license and yet had a career as a techie? Why would he bother with a CG license?

 

Seven Ensenadas in the NASBOAT Class doesn't necessarily mean anything. As in: "the tallest midget." Remember the crew member that stated they "kicked ass" in the Ensenada Race? Winning the NASBOAT Class doesn't prove anything.

 

Greek Olympic team? Tried out? What does that mean? I tried out for the US Ski team and sucked. How 'bout the bobsled team from Bermuda in the last Olympics? How 'bout Eddie the Eagle from the UK in the Olympic ski jump event several events ago? Yeah, Olympians - but totally incompetent and both damn near killed themselves.

 

If you really aren't aware of race qualifications, then maybe your fifty years of sailing won't count. Check out the Transpac, among others.

 

As for how they can ensure crews are adequate for the task, this has been covered many times in this thread and I have other things to do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah....no deep pocket? Are you knowledgeable about the financial status of the NOSA Board or Officers? It jsut takes one - look up "joint and several?'

 

No actually I'm not ....lol.....but if this race group was any like the ones around here most are not huge entities & formed as an LLC ---

 

Let me go google them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

Well I have seen "easier" Qualifying races that a skipper crew had to take before allowed bigger race. But no not really a pre-screening per se.

 

for instance, before I would ever be allowed into the Bermuda 1-2 I'd have to do a number of smaller shorter singlehanded overnight off shore races like the Around Block island one.

 

But from what I can tell the N2E is not exactly the Newport Bermuda race and would most likely be a qualifying race --- Its not like they had these guys sailing to Hawaii.

 

Thanks. I guess what's not been mentioned much about the N2E "race" is that it's not exactly a traditional race and does attract all manner of participants. It's already been pointed out that they created the "cruiser" class so that everyone could get to Ensenada for the Saturday and Sunday parties. There are those who are serious about competing and winning, but the majority are there for the party in Ensenada. Lots of pre-parties and I expect there were a lot of people in that race with hangovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following California appellate court decisions illustrate the expansion of Knight v. Jewett and of the simple concept of no-duty in a purely amateur sport setting becoming a roadblock for negligence claims.

 

Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc. (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 204, 209-214

 

Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1358, 1369

 

Bushnell v. Japanese-American Religious & Cultural Center (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 525, 532

 

Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1112

 

Note that all four cases involved professionals being sued by amateurs. The peer to peer standard of no-duty is even more solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea...

 

See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300-301. The Supreme Court held there was no liability, because the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care not to injure her; the court characterized the recreational sport activity they were engaged in as one of "primary assumption of the risk." Id.,at 321. Primary assumption of risk, as created by the California Supreme Court, prevents a claim of negligence from being heard by a jury because, when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

Trial lawyers have been trying to get the legislature to overide this case law for two decades, and yet it has solidly stood the test of time.

The court in Knight v. Jewett does NOT say that there is "no case," troll. It establishes a slightly different standard, "In an active sport such as touch football, the only duty owed to other players is to not act in a reckless or wanton manner." I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior. The difference between the "reckless or wanton" standard and the "gross or willful negligence" standard is a small step, one not very far removed from semantics. I may not even have to edit my opening statement to the jury for this case.

 

Of course this is a cast the undoubtedly gives fits to California lawyers with ordinary negligence in sports cases, but a clear showing of "gross or willful negligence" would quite often also fit as a good showing of "reckless or wanton." I stand by my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

All the reasons put forth (plus these guys raced and won a couple of times before), points to no way they win a case here of gross negligence or any such thing

 

You might want to look up "gross negligence." Not to mention the role the waiver will play in this situation.

 

Do you understand that the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence? The reason they do that is because it is against public policy to do so.

 

"the courts have always held that a waiver, any waiver, does not exonerate the responsible party from a claim of gross negligence"

 

I totally understand that very well --- I can sign anything and it can be over ruled in court (and yes understand the definition of 'gross negligence' very well) Its my position , taking all the information and circumstances as a whole, that there is no case here.... and if there is a case brought by some over zealous lawyer, then it will not be won against NOSA for gross negligence.....

 

So we have 2 different positions on what will happen -- only time will tell. When a certain amount of time goes by we will see what happens, but I am pretty sure if we don't see something by the end of this year filed against NOSA then we probably never will

 

in the mean time keep my Stella cold......:D

 

Hey, I'm not predicting the outcome of any litigation nor supporting any adverse judgments. I am simply trying point out that there certainly is enough smoke to suggest a claim will be filed. That's all. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the crew memeber that stated they "kicked ass" in the Ensenada Race?

 

A quick reminder, the crew of the Aegean won their class sailing in the fastest N2E race in its 65 year history.

 

That year, 2009, of 260 starters, there were 257 finishers, and all finished by 4 p.m. Saturday, 19 hours ahead of the usual 11 a.m. Sunday cutoff time. They did indeed kick ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really is being the more insulting in their interpretation?

 

Most reasonable people understand that shit happens even to the best of us, you might characterize it as 'carelessness,' others might recognize what happened as a mistake or series of mistkes, human error that could happen to anyone.

 

On the other hand, what DoucheRag is contending is that the late Theo Mavromatis negligently took his crew to sea without the training, discipline and experience necessary to complete the voyage safely.

 

The facts support the former and not the latter.

 

And in this post I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more charitable point of view.

 

Well, actually, no. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that NOSA should not allow inexperienced and unqualified people to participate in a race that involved potential hazards that could cause deaths.

 

Just curious about this point. How would NOSA go about qualifying almost 300 skippers plus their crew? I'm making an assumption that you're referring to the 4 souls who lost their lives - could be wrong - but it seems that's who you're referring to. Wouldn't one think that the 7 previous entries and 2 wins, plus the owner's 100T license, plus his participation in the pre-Olympics trials in Greece, plus the numerous other wins (not in "cruiser" class) with the same crew might "qualify" them, should NOSA have some method of "testing" the captain and crew? What would the criteria be for NOSA to qualify boats, captains and crews? Is this done elsewhere?

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

First of all, it is not taken as a fact the experiences you mention. We need to learn the facts. I would say that if those assertions were true for the skipper, he would be deemed to be qualified. Now what about the qualifications of the crew to serve as watch captain, in the night, in hazardous conditions?

 

Remember that those stated qualifcations need to be verified. does it amke sense taht a guy got a 100T CG license and had a career as a techie?

 

Seven Ensenadas in the NASBOAT Class doesn't necessarily mean anything. As in: "the tallest midget." Remember the crew memeber that stated they "kicked ass" in the Ensenada Race? Winning the NASBOAT Class doesn't prove anything.

 

Greek Olympic team? Tried out? What does that mean? I tried out for the US Ski team and sucked. How 'bout the bobsled team from Bermuda in the last Olympics? How 'bout Eddie the Eagle from the UK in the Olympic ski jump event several events ago? Yeah, Olympians - but totally incompetent and both damn near killed themselves.

 

If you really aren't aware of race qualifications, then maybe your fifty years of sailing won't count. Check out the Transpac, among others.

 

As for how they can ensure crews are adequate for the task, this has been covered many times in this thread and I have other things to do today.

 

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea...

 

See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300-301. The Supreme Court held there was no liability, because the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care not to injure her; the court characterized the recreational sport activity they were engaged in as one of "primary assumption of the risk." Id.,at 321. Primary assumption of risk, as created by the California Supreme Court, prevents a claim of negligence from being heard by a jury because, when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

Trial lawyers have been trying to get the legislature to overide this case law for two decades, and yet it has solidly stood the test of time.

The court in Knight v. Jewett does NOT say that there is "no case," troll. It establishes a slightly different standard, "In an active sport such as touch football, the only duty owed to other players is to not act in a reckless or wanton manner." I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior. The difference between the "reckless or wanton" standard and the "gross or willful negligence" standard is a small step, one not very far removed from semantics. I may not even have to edit my opening statement to the jury for this case.

 

Of course this is a cast the undoubtedly gives fits to California lawyers with ordinary negligence in sports cases, but a clear showing of "gross or willful negligence" would quite often also fit as a good showing of "reckless or wanton." I stand by my opinion.

 

Hey, you make far too much sense to be replying to that dork. Please use the "ignore" button and help us all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea...

 

See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300-301. The Supreme Court held there was no liability, because the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care not to injure her; the court characterized the recreational sport activity they were engaged in as one of "primary assumption of the risk." Id.,at 321. Primary assumption of risk, as created by the California Supreme Court, prevents a claim of negligence from being heard by a jury because, when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

Trial lawyers have been trying to get the legislature to overide this case law for two decades, and yet it has solidly stood the test of time.

The court in Knight v. Jewett does NOT say that there is "no case," troll. It establishes a slightly different standard, "In an active sport such as touch football, the only duty owed to other players is to not act in a reckless or wanton manner." I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior. The difference between the "reckless or wanton" standard and the "gross or willful negligence" standard is a small step, one not very far removed from semantics. I may not even have to edit my opening statement to the jury for this case.

 

Of course this is a cast the undoubtedly gives fits to California lawyers with ordinary negligence in sports cases, but a clear showing of "gross or willful negligence" would quite often also fit as a good showing of "reckless or wanton." I stand by my opinion.

 

Hey, you make far too much sense to be replying to that dork. Please use the "ignore" button and help us all out.

I'm close, but it's sooo much fun to jerk his chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm not predicting the outcome of any litigation nor supporting any adverse judgments. I am simply trying point out that there certainly is enough smoke to suggest a claim will be filed. That's all. Nothing more.

 

No Stella :o !?!?

 

 

STELLLAAAAAAAAA !!! (in my best young Brando)

 

 

Claims are easy !~ ANY nut job can put a lawsuit in... it means nothing.....

 

There was a lawyer that sued for millions for pain and suffering against a dry cleaner that either lost or destroyed and article of clothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior.

 

Thanks for the response and I respect your opinion, however I'd like to know how you would go about establishing that the skipper did in fact plot a course onto or through N. Coronado?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

Well I have seen "easier" Qualifying races that a skipper crew had to take before allowed bigger race. But no not really a pre-screening per se.

 

for instance, before I would ever be allowed into the Bermuda 1-2 I'd have to do a number of smaller shorter singlehanded overnight off shore races like the Around Block island one.

 

But from what I can tell the N2E is not exactly the Newport Bermuda race and would most likely be a qualifying race --- Its not like they had these guys sailing to Hawaii.

 

Thanks. I guess what's not been mentioned much about the N2E "race" is that it's not exactly a traditional race and does attract all manner of participants. It's already been pointed out that they created the "cruiser" class so that everyone could get to Ensenada for the Saturday and Sunday parties. There are those who are serious about competing and winning, but the majority are there for the party in Ensenada. Lots of pre-parties and I expect there were a lot of people in that race with hangovers.

 

I really don't want to appear as being argumentative, however, be advised that the race used to have as many as 600 entries, all required to sail to Ensenada.

 

As a result of an variety of factors, including the gross mismanagement by NOSA, the race has sustantailly dwindled in popularity - now down to the point of 213 entries. To offset the decline in entries, NOSA devised and implemented a "NASBOAT" class. These "sailors" constitute about 1/3 of those 213 entries.

 

And, it could be argued, that's a whole lot in lesser experienced and qualified "sailors."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court in Knight v. Jewett does NOT say that there is "no case"....

 

A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action, without duty there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Again, under "Primary assumption of risk," as created by the California Supreme Court, a claim of negligence is prevented from being heard by a jury because when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No case, troll? Ha! You have no idea...

 

See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300-301. The Supreme Court held there was no liability, because the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care not to injure her; the court characterized the recreational sport activity they were engaged in as one of "primary assumption of the risk." Id.,at 321. Primary assumption of risk, as created by the California Supreme Court, prevents a claim of negligence from being heard by a jury because, when there is no duty of care, there is no case.

 

Trial lawyers have been trying to get the legislature to overide this case law for two decades, and yet it has solidly stood the test of time.

The court in Knight v. Jewett does NOT say that there is "no case," troll. It establishes a slightly different standard, "In an active sport such as touch football, the only duty owed to other players is to not act in a reckless or wanton manner." I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior. The difference between the "reckless or wanton" standard and the "gross or willful negligence" standard is a small step, one not very far removed from semantics. I may not even have to edit my opening statement to the jury for this case.

 

Of course this is a cast the undoubtedly gives fits to California lawyers with ordinary negligence in sports cases, but a clear showing of "gross or willful negligence" would quite often also fit as a good showing of "reckless or wanton." I stand by my opinion.

 

Hey, you make far too much sense to be replying to that dork. Please use the "ignore" button and help us all out.

I'm close, but it's sooo much fun to jerk his chain.

 

Why is that fun? Do you like to kick the cane from blind people? Pull the wings off grasshoppers? Yell at kids with autism? Release the break on wheelchairs?

 

C'mon, we have to read all this tripe. He'll go away if you ignore him, as Naracet and I have opted to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm not predicting the outcome of any litigation nor supporting any adverse judgments. I am simply trying point out that there certainly is enough smoke to suggest a claim will be filed. That's all. Nothing more.

 

No Stella :o !?!?

 

 

STELLLAAAAAAAAA !!! (in my best young Brando)

 

 

Claims are easy !~ ANY nut job can put a lawsuit in... it means nothing.....

 

There was a lawyer that sued for millions for pain and suffering against a dry cleaner that either lost or destroyed and article of clothing

 

Nope, no Stella here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[... be advised that the race used to have as many as 600 entries, all required to sail to Ensenada.

 

 

As a point of fact, no one has ever been required to sail to Ensenada, rather the opposite actually as each participant acknowledges that they are aware of RRS 4:

 

"RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior.

 

Thanks for the response and I respect your opinion, however I'd like to know how you would go about establishing that the skipper did in fact plot a course onto or through N. Coronado?

Aaaah! I see you finally read the case you cited, troll! Your tail tucks nicely, so I'll give you the rationale:

 

  1. See Spot data. It supports powering (constant speed in dead calm), autopilot (dead straight course beyond capability of hand steering), directly onto the island.
  2. Someone set the course, either on the autopilot itself or on the chart plotter that directed the autopilot. That course took the boat directly onto the island.
  3. Don't care who plotted the course. The skipper is responsible for either plotting the course or for supervision of the plot to make sure it does not put the boat directly onto the island. Either his plot was reckless or wanton behavior or his failure to check the plot was reckless or wanton behavior. Either way he is responsible for putting the boat on the island.
  4. If the alleged debris at the foot of the cliff is ever confirmed, it would make the proposition inescapable that the boat actually hit the island, but even without it, the Spot data and the condition of the bodies is sufficient to support such a conclusion.

All it takes is one qualified expert witness to testify to the above (with preparation to counter all the strange and wonderful scenarios conjured up by the SA experts). I suspect that I could establish that it wasn't a propane explosion, it wasn't carbon monoxide, it wasn't a collision with a ship, it wasn't the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

On second thought, I may need two experts. My maritime expert may not be as well qualified on the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

 

Put me in, coach. Put me in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can get into court on the basis that plotting a course onto or through the island is reckless or wanton behavior.

 

Thanks for the response and I respect your opinion, however I'd like to know how you would go about establishing that the skipper did in fact plot a course onto or through N. Coronado?

Aaaah! I see you finally read the case you cited, troll! Your tail tucks nicely, so I'll give you the rationale:

 

  1. See Spot data. It supports powering (constant speed in dead calm), autopilot (dead straight course beyond capability of hand steering), directly onto the island.
  2. Someone set the course, either on the autopilot itself or on the chart plotter that directed the autopilot. That course took the boat directly onto the island.
  3. Don't care who plotted the course. The skipper is responsible for either plotting the course or for supervision of the plot to make sure it does not put the boat directly onto the island. Either his plot was reckless or wanton behavior or his failure to check the plot was reckless or wanton behavior. Either way he is responsible for putting the boat on the island.
  4. If the alleged debris at the foot of the cliff is ever confirmed, it would make the proposition inescapable that the boat actually hit the island, but even without it, the Spot data and the condition of the bodies is sufficient to support such a conclusion.

All it takes is one qualified expert witness to testify to the above (with preparation to counter all the strange and wonderful scenarios conjured up by the SA experts). I suspect that I could establish that it wasn't a propane explosion, it wasn't carbon monoxide, it wasn't a collision with a ship, it wasn't the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

On second thought, I may need two experts. My maritime expert may not be as well qualified on the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

 

Put me in, coach. Put me in!

I notice you didn't offer a defense for the Ninja Theory....interesting. They were not sacrificing a woman so that alone rules the Kraken out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

How many crew members signed it, troll? How many of them actually saw it and authorized the skipper to sign on their behalf? Surely you jest! Maybe I'll get someone digging for hidden assets. The case is getting so strong, I may just have to decline to settle and go for the big bucks!

The crew's heirs will probably sue the owner's heirs when they find out how much $ is to be won from the owner's ins company. This is why you should never take anyone out on your boat without them signing a waiver saying they understand the inherent risks of boating, and agree not to sue you, the captain, or you, the owner, for any reason. This is a good reason to get into single-handed sailing

:-/

 

What else can you do? If you're a boat owner you're pretty much screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

 

Tell me, why is it that you respond to his nonsense?

 

I don't understand that. Help me out. And by responding to him, you are just asking for another silly argument, which maost of us are tired of reading.

 

Hence, the "ignore" feature. Upper right hand corner. It's there for a purpose. Use it. Learn to love it.

You are completely correct.

 

I tend to give people more chances than they deserve. This was another instance of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, I may need two experts. My maritime expert may not be as well qualified on the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

Funny!

 

Dead straight course beyond capability of hand steering? Oh I think it would be easy enough to replicate that SPOT track with hand steering.

 

Someone set the course? Please, you know "someone" isn't going to cut it.

 

The skipper is responsible for either plotting the course or for supervision of the plot? Sure, however as has been pointed out here, one of the crew could have easily interfered with the equipment. What you can prove really does matter.

 

The Spot data and the condition of the bodies is sufficient to support such a conclusion they hit the island? Okay, but it doesn't tell us why. Perhaps there was an equipment failure. Or the plaintiff's own decedent pushed a wrong button.

 

Besides, take a look at the four appellate court decisions I cited earlier. All expanded on Knight v. Jewett and all absolved paid sports professionals from liability when they caused serious injury or death. Even the trial lawyers would be happy just to roll back Knight v. Jewett to where it would only apply in cases of voluntary, casual and recreational amateur sporting activity.

 

I'm not saying you probably couldn't get the skipper or Marina Sailing's insurance company to pay you go away money, but prevailing at trial would be very, very problematic, case law being as strong as it is. And as for NOSA...

 

Nice discussion though, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

 

Hot diggety damn! Then I guess the boat cannot sue. Or at least if the RRS are binding on the courts.

 

Who'da thunk?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been sailing for 50 years, racing when I was younger, and have never heard about a race committee or organization running a pre-screening test beforehand. Help me out here.

 

Well I have seen "easier" Qualifying races that a skipper crew had to take before allowed bigger race. But no not really a pre-screening per se.

 

for instance, before I would ever be allowed into the Bermuda 1-2 I'd have to do a number of smaller shorter singlehanded overnight off shore races like the Around Block island one.

 

But from what I can tell the N2E is not exactly the Newport Bermuda race and would most likely be a qualifying race --- Its not like they had these guys sailing to Hawaii.

 

Thanks. I guess what's not been mentioned much about the N2E "race" is that it's not exactly a traditional race and does attract all manner of participants. It's already been pointed out that they created the "cruiser" class so that everyone could get to Ensenada for the Saturday and Sunday parties. There are those who are serious about competing and winning, but the majority are there for the party in Ensenada. Lots of pre-parties and I expect there were a lot of people in that race with hangovers.

 

I really don't want to appear as being argumentative, however, be advised that the race used to have as many as 600 entries, all required to sail to Ensenada.

 

As a result of an variety of factors, including the gross mismanagement by NOSA, the race has sustantailly dwindled in popularity - now down to the point of 213 entries. To offset the decline in entries, NOSA devised and implemented a "NASBOAT" class. These "sailors" constitute about 1/3 of those 213 entries.

 

And, it could be argued, that's a whole lot in lesser experienced and qualified "sailors."

 

Clearly.

 

I stopped in here in the hopes of getting some insight into what happened. Theo was a member of the Little Ships Fleet Yacht Club, which "shares" some space with the Navy Yacht Club Long Beach (which I belong to). LSF has a storage unit on our property and is really a paper club at this point, but we know several of the members.

 

I thank all of you who provided your wisdom and expertise and hope that some day they'll be able to figure out what happened.

 

The press in Southern California repeated a lot of misleading statements that came from the CG and NOSA - and they continue to repeat them in the updated articles. It's very hard to get any reliable information.

 

This is just my opinion but I don't think they were hit by another ship. I think they ran smack into that rock, either because they didn't see it or they weren't paying attention.

 

It's a tragedy that shouldn't have happened and there's wives and kids who are really suffering. The breadwinners are gone and paychecks have stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

How many crew members signed it, troll? How many of them actually saw it and authorized the skipper to sign on their behalf? Surely you jest! Maybe I'll get someone digging for hidden assets. The case is getting so strong, I may just have to decline to settle and go for the big bucks!

The crew's heirs will probably sue the owner's heirs when they find out how much $ is to be won from the owner's ins company. This is why you should never take anyone out on your boat without them signing a waiver saying they understand the inherent risks of boating, and agree not to sue you, the captain, or you, the owner, for any reason. This is a good reason to get into single-handed sailing

:-/

 

What else can you do? If you're a boat owner you're pretty much screwed.

 

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I notice you didn't offer a defense for the Ninja Theory....interesting. They were not sacrificing a woman so that alone rules the Kraken out.

 

The first rule of Ninjas is that we don't talk about Ninjas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOSA's N2E waiver...

 

 

 

BINGO !

 

and "RRS Part 1 Rule 4 Decision to Race

The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

and ditto BINGO !

 

 

Hot diggety damn! Then I guess the boat cannot sue. Or at least if the RRS are binding on the courts.

 

Who'da thunk?!?

 

Nonsense. This is unfair!

 

A boat should have a right to sue, just as that rock does.

 

Free the rock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think that that is a possible legal case, then why should any credit be given to your ability to judge viability of legal cases?

 

Tell me, why is it that you respond to his nonsense?

 

I don't understand that. Help me out. And by responding to him, you are just asking for another silly argument, which maost of us are tired of reading.

 

Hence, the "ignore" feature. Upper right hand corner. It's there for a purpose. Use it. Learn to love it.

You are completely correct.

 

I tend to give people more chances than they deserve. This was another instance of that.

 

STOP IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago I had a party at my home, and some young ass jumped off my indoor balcony from the second floor because he was drunk. He broke his leg, and sued my homeowners ins for the cost. Was I negligent?

 

It doesn't matter why they are dead, they are dead, there is insurance money to be had, and there are people who are going after it, guaranteed.

 

Please don't comment on my uncanny sense of the obvious, I'm well aware. ;-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, I may need two experts. My maritime expert may not be as well qualified on the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

Funny!

 

Dead straight course beyond capability of hand steering? Oh I think it would be easy enough to replicate that SPOT track with hand steering.

 

Someone set the course? Please, you know "someone" isn't going to cut it.

 

The skipper is responsible for either plotting the course or for supervision of the plot? Sure, however as has been pointed out here, one of the crew could have easily interfered with the equipment. What you can prove really does matter.

 

The Spot data and the condition of the bodies is sufficient to support such a conclusion they hit the island? Okay, but it doesn't tell us why. Perhaps there was an equipment failure. Or the plaintiff's own decedent pushed a wrong button.

 

Besides, take a look at the four appellate court decisions I cited earlier. All expanded on Knight v. Jewett and all absolved paid sports professionals from liability when they caused serious injury or death. Even the trial lawyers would be happy just to roll back Knight v. Jewett to where it would only apply in cases of voluntary, casual and recreational amateur sporting activity.

 

I'm not saying you probably couldn't get the skipper or Marina Sailing's insurance company to pay you go away money, but prevailing at trial would be very, very problematic, case law being as strong as it is. And as for NOSA...

 

Nice discussion though, thanks.

Okay, DoRag. I concede. I'm done with the troll. Even California courts are more logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago I had a party at my home, and some young ass jumped off my indoor balcony from the second floor because he was drunk. He broke his leg, and sued my homeowners ins for the cost. Was I negligent?

 

It doesn't matter why they are dead, they are dead, there is insurance money to be had, and there are people who are going after it, guaranteed.

 

Please don't comment on my uncanny sense of the obvious, I'm well aware. ;-0

 

Ah! Yet another blinding glimpse of the obvious!

 

Jeebus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, I may need two experts. My maritime expert may not be as well qualified on the aliens, mermaids or the Kraken.

 

Funny!

 

Dead straight course beyond capability of hand steering? Oh I think it would be easy enough to replicate that SPOT track with hand steering.

 

Someone set the course? Please, you know "someone" isn't going to cut it.

 

The skipper is responsible for either plotting the course or for supervision of the plot? Sure, however as has been pointed out here, one of the crew could have easily interfered with the equipment. What you can prove really does matter.

 

The Spot data and the condition of the bodies is sufficient to support such a conclusion they hit the island? Okay, but it doesn't tell us why. Perhaps there was an equipment failure. Or the plaintiff's own decedent pushed a wrong button.

 

Besides, take a look at the four appellate court decisions I cited earlier. All expanded on Knight v. Jewett and all absolved paid sports professionals from liability when they caused serious injury or death. Even the trial lawyers would be happy just to roll back Knight v. Jewett to where it would only apply in cases of voluntary, casual and recreational amateur sporting activity.

 

I'm not saying you probably couldn't get the skipper or Marina Sailing's insurance company to pay you go away money, but prevailing at trial would be very, very problematic, case law being as strong as it is. And as for NOSA...

 

Nice discussion though, thanks.

Okay, DoRag. I concede. I'm done with the troll. Even California courts are more logical.

 

Yes!

 

Although I'm not sure I would stipulate to that - the ninth Circuit Court is in California even though not a state court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for the 20th time, a waiver is not valid for gross negligence!

 

Again, for the 20th time, under Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th at 300, participants owe no duty of care to reduce or eliminate the risks of harm that are inherent in the sport itself, and this has nothing to do with consent to waiver. A duty to use due care is one of the elements of every negligence cause of action; if there is no duty, there is no liability, see Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751.

 

Hitting an island at night is clearly a risk inherent to the sport of long distance sailboat racing, just as hitting a tree is a risk inherent to skiing, and again, the protection under Knight does not rely on consent to waiver.